Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is an objection by the Taxing Officer that the memorandum of appeal has not been properly stamped inasmuch as instead of one impressed stamp of Rs. 45 one impressed stamp of Rs. 40, and one adhesive label of Rs. 5 have been used. This impressed stamp and the label were purchased from the stamp vendor who has been posted in the High Court by the Government. The stamp vendor is a Government servant and is attached to the Allahabad Treasury and is under the Treasury Officer as he states. Rule 24 of the Stamp Manual says:
When, in the case of fees exceeding Rs. 20, the amount can be denoted by a single impressed stamp, the fee shall be denoted by a single impressed stamp of the required value. But if the amount cannot be denoted by a single impressed stamp, or if a single impressed stamp of the required value is not available, an impressed stamp of the next lower value available shall be used, and the deficiency shall be made up by the use of one or more additional impressed stamps of the next lower values available which may be required to make up the exact amount of the fee, in combination with adhesive stamps to make up fractions of Rs. 20 or less.
2. A certificate from the stamp vendor has been filed by the appellant along with his memorandum of appeal which is to the following effect: 'Certified that the court-fee stamp of the value of Rs. 45 is not in my stock.' The objection of the Taxing Officer is that the certificate is not in accordance with the terms of Rule 24 referred to above, as it does not show that the impressed stamp of the denomination of Rs. 45 was not available. The certificate simply shows that the stamp vendor had not in his stock such a stamp. Rule 118 of the Stamp Manual lays down:
Should no sheet of the particular value required be in stock, the officer in charge of the treasury, when the application is made at a treasury, or the ex officio or licensed vendor, when the application is made to him, shall be bound to supply the smallest number of sheets which he can furnish so as to make up the required amount.
3. This rule shows that in case an ex officio or licensed vendor has not got a sheet of a particular value in his stock it would be his duty to supply the smallest number of sheets which he can furnish so as to make up the required amount, as was done in this ease. If we read Rule 24 and Rule 118 together it appears that in order to comply with the condition of Rule 24 it would be enough if the appellant could show that the stamp vendor, from whom he purchased the stamp, had not got in his stock a sheet of the required value, otherwise there would be no use of the provisions of Rule 118. The Taxing Officer has referred to the order in stamp reference in F. A. No. 62 of 1932. It does not appear from the order that the stamps of different denominations filed in that case had been purchased under such circumstances as exist in this case. It appears that the appellant had no excuse for purchasing different stamps of smaller denominations in F. A. No. 62 of 1932. The Taxing Officer has also referred to the case in Tota Rajayya v. Margoni Rajmalaya 1931 Nag 94. It also does not apply to the present case, because there is nothing to show that in Tota Rajayya v. Margoni Rajmalaya 1931 Nag 94 the stamps were purchased on account of there being no stamp of the required denomination in the stock of the stamp vendor from whom the stamps of smaller denominations were purchased. He also refers to the case in Jangi Pandey v. Saudagar Singh 1931 Pat 113. There is nothing in the judgment to show that the effect of Rule 118 of the Stamp Manual was considered. In my opinion the provisions of Rule 24 of the Stamp Manual have been complied with and the memorandum of appeal has been properly stamped.