AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkataramana Rao, J.—The question referred to me for decision is whether court-fee paid by the petitioner on the memorandum of the
civil revision petition presented to this Court against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in E.A. No. 444 of 1940 is
correct.
The application out of which this civil revision petition arises was made to direct the first respondent to refund a sum,, of Rs. 987-3-11 being the
amount which he received at a rateable distribution of the sale proceeds, of the property of the common judgment-debtor in excess of the amount
which he was legitimately entitled to. The petitioner paid a court-fee of Rs. 5 on the memorandum of the petition, but the office brings to my notice
that the value of the suit wherein the sale proceeds were realised in execution of the decree is above the value of Rs. 1,000 and therefore a court-
fee of Rs. 10 ought to be paid.
Mr. Ramabhadra Aiyar on behalf of the petitioner contends that the value of the proceeding to which the order relates and which is sought to be
revised is less than Rs. 1,000 and that therefore a court-fee of Rs. 5 alone is leviable. The provision in the Court-Fees Act relating to this matter is
Article 1(d) (i) of Schedule II of the Madras Court-Fees (Amendment) Act which runs thus:
When presented to a High Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for revision of an order:
(a) When the value of the suit or proceeding to which the order relates does not exceed Us. 1,000...Five rupees,
(b) When the value of the suit or proceeding exceeds Rs. 1,000... Tea rupees.
The words ''suit or proceeding'' have been interpreted in various senses in different statutes according to the intent and scope of the statute,
sometimes in a narrow sense and sometimes in a wide sense. The word ''suit'' in a narrow sense is confined to a litigation initiated in a trial Court
and ending with a decree or a final order passed by it. In this sense it would not include execution proceedings or proceedings in appeal. But in a
wide sense it has been interpreted as comprehending the entire litigation commencing from the initiation of the litigation in the trial Court up to the
stage when the ultimate decision is reached in the final Court of appeal or revision. In this view it would include execution proceedings and
proceedings in appeal as continuation of the. suit. The word ''proceeding'' has been similarly interpreted. In its narrow sense, it is a step in any
action or in an independent proceeding analogous ''to an action by which a litigation is initiated. In a wide sense it has been interpreted, if used in
juxtaposition with a suit) to include any proceeding in the nature of a suit. Even in this view, having regard to the context, it is sometimes limited
only to the stage of litigation commenced by filing a petition or application in the trial Court and ending with an order or decree passed by that
Court. In another view it is meant to indicate all the applications in execution of a decree or order passed in the main proceeding and also all
proceedings in appeal as continuation of the proceeding. The word ''proceeding'' used alone has been interpreted to mean all judicial proceedings
''and when applied to suits to mean the suit as a whole. Therefore the meaning to be attributed to the word ''suit'' or ''proceeding'' must depend
upon the scope of the enactment wherein the said expressions are used and with reference to the particular context wherein they. occur. The
words ''suit or proceeding'', in the present case occur in the Madras Court-Fees Amending Act and the intention of the Legislature was to provide
a fixed court-fee for all revision petitions filed against the orders of the subordinate Courts whether passed in a suit or an original proceeding such
as probate or guardianship or in appeals from decrees or orders therefrom or in any interlocutory applications made in the said suit or proceeding
or in appeals from orders passed on such applications, whatever the nature of the order is. Having regard to the context it is obvious that the
words ''suit or proceeding do not comprehend the same thing. Having regard to, the object of the enactment it seems to me that the word
''proceeding'' is used as meaning a proceeding in the nature of a suit, and both the words are used as comprising the entire litigation commencing
with the filing of a plaint or, a petition or an application in the trial Court down to the stage when ultimate decision is reached in the final Court of
appeal or revision. In this view the word ''suit'' will include execution proceedings and proceedings in appeal and the word ''proceeding'' will also
bear the same connotation. Therefore when a revision petition is presented to the High Court against the order of a subordinate Court, the question
to be considered is, what is the value of the suit or the main proceeding wherein the order was made? The expression ''to which the order relates''
has reference to the suit or proceeding and not to the application in the suit or proceeding on which the order which is sought to be revised was
passed.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proper stamp duty that is leviable on the revision petition in question is a sum of Rs. 10 and not Rs. 5. The
petitioner is accordingly directed to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 5 within two weeks from to-day.