2014 (9) TMI 1180 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellate Court Can Rectify Court Fee Deficit; Trial Court Order Essential

The Supreme Court held that the appellate court can grant permission to rectify a deficit in court fee during the appellate stage, emphasizing the need ... Deficiency in payment of court-fee - case of plaintiff is that the aspect of deficit court-fee came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs at the time of preparation of decree only and, therefore, an opportunity deserved to be granted to the Plaintiffs to make up the deficit court-fee in the interest of justice - invocation of Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of Court Fees Act, 1870 - Held that:- The impugned order can not be sustained for more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court has not properly construed Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of the 1870 Act - Sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that in plaint in which sufficient court-fee has not been paid, such plaint shall not be acted upon unless the Plaintiff makes good the deficiency in court-fee within such time as may from time to time be fixed by the Court. Sub-section (3) provides that if a question of deficiency in court-fee in respect of any plaint is raised and the Court finds that the court-fee paid is insufficient, it shall ask the Plaintiff to make good the deficiency within the time which may be granted and in case of default, the plaint shall be rejected. The provisions of section 6 casts duty on the Court to determine as to whether or not court-fee paid on the plaint is deficient and if the court-fee is found to be deficient, then give an opportunity to the Plaintiff to make up such deficiency within the time that may be fixed by the Court. The important thread that runs through Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 6 of 1870 Act is that for payment of court-fee, time must be granted by the court and if despite the order of the court, deficient court-fee is not paid, then consequence as provided therein must follow - Insofar as present case is concerned, the first appellate court in its order rightly observed that after amendment of plaint and consequent amendment in valuation, the trial court did not pass any order specifying time for payment of deficient court-fee. Obviously, in the absence of such specific order, Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of 1870 Act would not come into operation against the Plaintiff. Clause (ii) of Section 12 of 1870 Act clearly empowers the appellate court to direct a party to make up deficit court-fee in the plaint at the appellate stage. The power exercised by the first appellate court can be traced to Clause (ii) of Section 12 of 1870 Act as well - The order of the first appellate court being eminently just and proper there was no justification for the High Court to invoke its power Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and interfere with an order which effectively advanced the cause of justice. The impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and deserves to set-aside - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Deficiency in payment of court fee in a suit for declaration and injunction.2. Whether the appellate court can grant permission to make up the deficit court fee during the appellate stage.3. Interpretation of Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of the Court-fees Act, 1870.4. Applicability of Clause (ii) of Section 12 of the 1870 Act in directing a party to pay additional court fee at the appellate stage.Issue 1: Deficiency in payment of court feeThe Plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction paid adequate court fee initially. However, after amending the reliefs sought in the suit, there was a deficiency in the payment of court fee. The trial court did not pass any order to make up the deficiency, leading to a dispute regarding the payment of court fee.Issue 2: Permission to make up deficit court fee during the appellate stageThe first appellate court granted the Plaintiffs an opportunity to make up the deficit court fee, considering that no specific time limit was set by the trial court for such payment. However, the High Court held that deficiency in court fee in respect of the plaint cannot be rectified during the appellate stage, citing provisions of the Court Fees Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.Issue 3: Interpretation of Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of the 1870 ActThe Supreme Court analyzed Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of the Court-fees Act, emphasizing that the court must determine if the court fee paid is deficient and grant the Plaintiff time to rectify the deficiency. The Court highlighted that without a specific order from the trial court, the provisions of the Act regarding court fee deficiency do not apply.Issue 4: Applicability of Clause (ii) of Section 12 of the 1870 ActThe Court referred to Clause (ii) of Section 12 of the 1870 Act, which empowers the appellate court to direct a party to pay additional court fee if a question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of revenue. The Court concluded that the first appellate court's order, allowing the Plaintiffs to make up the deficit court fee, was just and proper, and the High Court erred in interfering with it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, ruling that the appellate court can grant permission to rectify the deficit court fee during the appellate stage, as empowered by the relevant provisions of the Court Fees Act.