Deficient court fee and concurrent findings of fact did not justify interference absent a substantial question of law.

Deficient court fee on an alternative monetary claim did not invalidate the plaint or decree where fee had been paid on the principal claim and balance fee could be directed on the amount ultimately decreed. The objection that the balance fee was not paid within time was rejected. Concurrent findings based on documentary evidence were treated as factual, and the award of notice expenses, interest, and costs disclosed no legal infirmity. As no substantial question of law arose, the findings were left undisturbed and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint and decree were invalid on account of deficient court fee in respect of the alternative monetary claim, and (ii) whether the concurrent findings based on documentary evidence and incidental costs and interest gave rise to any substantial question of law in second appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint and decree were invalid on account of deficient court fee in respect of the alternative monetary claim.

Analysis: The plaintiff had paid court fee on the principal claim and had undertaken to pay court fee on the alternative claim depending on whether the defendant delivered the ST-1 forms or became liable to pay the corresponding amount. The trial court directed payment of the balance court fee on the amount ultimately decreed, which was treated as a permissible course. The objection that the fee was not paid within the stipulated time was held to be without merit.

Conclusion: The objection based on court fee deficiency was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent findings based on documentary evidence and incidental costs and interest gave rise to any substantial question of law in second appeal.

Analysis: The challenge to the proof and appreciation of documents was treated as a factual matter already examined by both courts below. The award of notice expenses, interest, and costs was also not found to disclose any legal infirmity. In second appeal, interference was declined because no substantial question of law arose and the findings were found to be based on proper appreciation of the record.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law was made out, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact and a permissible course adopted by the trial court regarding payment of balance court fee do not warrant interference unless a substantial question of law arises.

---