BICHITRA KUMAR PAUL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-1994-7-18
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (FROM: AGARTALA)
Decided on July 01,1994

Bichitra Kumar Paul And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Tripura and Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHANTH RAM DAS VS. GANGA DAS [REFERRED TO]
MANNAN LAL VS. CHHOTAKA BIBI DEAD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)IN these three appeals, learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench. The Said question is: Whether in the light of the Rule 18(1) in Chapter V of Gauhati High Court Rules, the Registrar is entitled to allow time to the Appellant for depositing the Deficit Court Fee?
(2.)FOR the purpose of deciding the above question, the facts may be briefly stated: The memoranda of three appeals were filed with a fixed court fee of Rs. 10/ - and an office note was put up that appeals were not properly stamped and thereafter, it was placed before the Deputy Registrar who allowed one month time to deposit the deficit court fee. Thereafter, the matter was laid before the Bench for passing judicial orders. A Division Bench of this Court look note of the fact that another Division Bench gave a direction to the Registrar to give a decision as a Taxing Officer regarding court fee payable in accordance with Gauhati High Court Rules, Registrar decided the matter, but the correctness was challenged before another Bench. But in the meantime a Single Bench held that appeal was properly stamped and the decision of the Apex Court was not applicable ( : AIR 1985 S.C. 1576). But the office gave another note that in view of the judgment passed in other two appeals, namely, M.A. (F) Nos. 17 and 18 of 1988, the Appellants of the present appeals have to pay the ad valorem court fee. Again the matter was placed before the Single Bench, but no decision was given and court fee as per above judgment was also not paid. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Registrar, Agartala Bench and allowed one month time to file the deficit court fee which was not done and the deficit court fee was paid after expiry of the above period of one month though there was no specific order of the court or of the Registrar. Therefore, the present reference.
(3.)WE have heard Mr. S.N. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Also heard Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Govt. Advocate, Tripura.
Our attention has been drawn to Rule 2 under Chapter - II and Rules 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18(2) under Chapter - V of the Gauhati High Court Rules. Our attention has been drawn also to Section 4 of the Court Fees Act and Sections 148 and 149 Code of Civil Procedure.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.