Skip to content


Manzoor Ahmed Vs. the State Government and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberReview Petn. S.R. No. 36534 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1975AP72
ActsAndhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - Schedule - Articles 5 and 11; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 144
AppellantManzoor Ahmed
RespondentThe State Government and ors.
Appellant AdvocateJaleel Ahmed, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePrincipal Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
civil - relevancy of article - article 5 of schedule 1 and article 11 (u) of schedule 2 of andhra court-fees and suits valuation act, 1956 and section 144 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - issue as to what amount of court fee stamp to be paid for review petition - writ petition is neither plaint nor memorandum of appeal so does not come under article 5 of schedule 1 - held, residuary article 11 of schedule 2 would apply to review petition. - .....argued on behalf of the petitioner that as this column refers only to a plaint or a memorandum of appeal, the expression 'judgment' in column no 2 should be understood as only a judgment in a matter which arises out of a plaint or a memorandum of appeal. in as much as a writ petition is neither a plaint nor a memorandum of appeal, it is argued that a judgment in a writ petition will not come within the ambit of article 5 of schedule i. it is contended that as there is no other article dealing with the review of a judgment in a writ petition, the relevant article is the residuary article 11 (u) of schedule ii which says that the court-fee for an application or petition presented to the high court and not otherwise specifically provided for, is rs. 2/-. it cannot be denied that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A. Kuppuswami, J.

1. The question for consideration is whether the petition for review of the Judgment in W. P. 255 of 1969 has to bear Court-fee stamp of Rs. 50/- as pointed out by the office or Rs. 2/- as contended by the petitioner. Notice was given to the Government Pleader and he placed the relevant provision of the Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act before me. He says that the proper Article which governs this petition is Article 5 of Schedule I which deals with application for review of a judgment. In the column relating to proper fee, it is stated 'One half of the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal comprising the relief sought in the application for review.' It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that as this column refers only to a plaint or a memorandum of appeal, the expression 'judgment' in column No 2 should be understood as only a judgment in a matter which arises out of a plaint or a memorandum of appeal. In as much as a Writ petition is neither a plaint nor a memorandum of appeal, it is argued that a judgment in a writ petition will not come within the ambit of Article 5 of Schedule I. It is contended that as there is no other Article dealing with the review of a judgment in a writ petition, the relevant Article is the residuary Article 11 (u) of Schedule II which says that the Court-fee for an application or petition presented to the High Court and not otherwise specifically provided for, is Rs. 2/-. It cannot be denied that the expression 'review of Judgment' in column No. 2 of Article 5 has to be read in the light of column No. 3 which is also a part of that Article. The expression 'judgment' cannot be understood as a judgment in every matter. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that a writ petition is a plaint within the meaning of column No. 3 and hence the judgment in a writ petition is also included in the expression 'judgment' in Article 5 and half the fee payable on the writ petition has to be paid for an application for review. I am unable to agree with this submission. It is no doubt true that the expression, 'plaint' has not been defined either in the Court-fees Act or even in the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Code of Civil Procedure says that every suit shall be instituted by presentation of a plaint or in such manner as may be prescribed. The expression 'Plaint' in the Court-fees Act should, therefore, be understood as a document by which a suit is instituted. It cannot be said that a writ petition is such a document. That a writ petition is not treated as equivalent to a plaint, is clear from the fact that while Article 1 provides for a plaint and says that the Court-fee has to be paid ad valorem according to the subject-matter in dispute, there is a specific provision for writ petitions under Schedule II, Article 11(s). There is, therefore indication in the Court-fees Act itself to say that a writ petition is not regarded as a plaint. For the same reason, a writ petition cannot be regarded as an appeal. Therefore I am inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Article 5 has no application. It is not contended that any other article applies.

2. Hence the residuary Article 11 (u) of Schedule II applies and the proper Court-fee is Rs. 2/-.

3. It is true that this may encourage persons to file frivolous petitions for review of judgments in writ petitions, The proper remedy, in my view, is to see that the Court-fees Act is amended suitably if such a situation is desired to be avoided.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //