Skip to content


Koer Karan Singh Vs. Gopal Rai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.123
AppellantKoer Karan Singh
RespondentGopal Rai and ors.
Excerpt:
court-fees act (vii of 1870), section 5 - taxing officer's decision determination of the amount of court-fee final--taxing judge's power to interfere--jurisdiction. - - the language of section 12 is perfectly clear. agarwala wishes to obtain time to make good the deficiency i would further point out that in my opinion i have no jurisdiction in the matter as it has not been referred to me as taxing judge by the taxing officer......has been urged that a decision of a court as to the category within which a suit may fall is not a final decision contemplated by section 12 and the same principle applies to section 5 of the act. with this i cannot agree. the language of section 12 is perfectly clear. it is merely the decision of a court as to valuation, not the category which is final; where as in section 5 it is the decision of the taxing officer as to the amount of the court-fee payable which is final. the legislature has not thought fit to allow any appeal from such an order, and it seems to me that once such an order has been passed, i cannot go behind it to examine the method which the taxing officer adopted to arrive at his decision. i have, therefore, no jurisdiction in this matter to set aside the order of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Tudball, J.

1. This matter has come before me in the following circumstances:

2. A memorandum of appeal was filed on a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10. The officer, whose duty it was to see that the proper fee was paid, reported that there was a deficiency of Rs. 130.

3. This report of his was contested on behalf of the appellant, and this difference having arisen the matter was placed before the Taxing: Officer.

4. The latter on the 12th of August last passed an under under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, holding that there was a deficiency and the amount of fee had been correctly estimated by the office. In some manner, which is not apparent from the record, the papers were laid before Mr. Justice Griffin, who thereupon ordered the matter to be placed before the Taxing Judge for orders.

5. Mr. Wallach has appeared on behalf of the Crown and takes a preliminary objection that the order of the Taxing Officer was a final order as contemplated by Section 5 of the Court Fees Act.

6. Attention has been called to two rulings reported in Badri Prasad v. Kundan Lal 15 A. 117 and in Balkaran Rai v. Gobind Nath Tewari 12 A. 129. In view of those rulings and of the clear terms of the section there is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that the Taxing Officer's order is final and that I have no further power to interfere in the matter. It is urged by Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the appellant that the dispute was one as to the category within which the suit falls and that, therefore, the order is not a final order.

7. But the decision as to the category is the preliminary point which has to be decided before a decision as to the amount of Court-fees can be arrived at. According to the plain language of Section 5 the amount fixed by the Taxing Officer, no matter how he arrives at his conclusion, is fixed finally and is binding so far as the purposes of the Court Fees Act are concerned. Attention has been directed to Section 12 of the Act, and it has been urged that a decision of a Court as to the category within which a suit may fall is not a final decision contemplated by Section 12 and the same principle applies to Section 5 of the Act. With this I cannot agree. The language of Section 12 is perfectly clear. It is merely the decision of a Court as to valuation, not the category which is final; Where as in Section 5 it is the decision of the Taxing Officer as to the amount of the Court-fee payable which is final. The Legislature has not thought fit to allow any appeal from such an order, and it seems to me that once such an order has been passed, I cannot go behind it to examine the method which the Taxing Officer adopted to arrive at his decision. I have, therefore, no jurisdiction in this matter to set aside the order of the Taxing Officer. Let the papers be laid before the Judge taking applications. As Mr. Agarwala wishes to obtain time to make good the deficiency I would further point out that in my opinion I have no jurisdiction in the matter as it has not been referred to me as Taxing Judge by the Taxing Officer.


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