A.V.Verma, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Court below under order XVIII rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing that the statement of plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this revision may be recorded as he was about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. In pursuance of this direction the court had recorded the statement of the plaintiff. Before, however, his statement could not be completed and the plaintiff court not be cross examined, the defendant filed this revision and got the proceedings stayed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed application under Order XVIII rule 16 of the Code of Civil Proceedure stating that the plaintiff was leaving the country shortly. His statement may, therefore, be recorded forthwith. THE application was opposed by defendant-applicant on a variety of grounds which it is not necessary to elabourate in view of the fact that the learned counsel confined his submissions to only one objection. Sri H. S. Nigam, appearing for defendant applicant submitted that in this case the defendant had raised an objection with regard to the sufficiency of Court fees paid by plaintiff upon the plaint. A question of proper amount of court fees having been raised no proceeding could be permitted to take place in view of the peremptory language of section 6 (4) of the Court Fees Act. Having heard the learned counsel for parties I find no merit in the above contention. Section 6 (4) of the Court fees Act provides, whenever a question of the proper amount of court fee payable is raised otherwise than under sub-section (3), the Court shall decide such question before proceeding with any other issue. This provision would be attracted only if the Court- below proceeds with any other issue arising in the case. The Court below has observed that at this stage he was not proceeding with any other issue. He was merely, in view of the urgency of the situation, acting under order XVIII rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure by allowing the evidence of the plaintiff to be recorded Since the Court below was not proceeding with any other issue he committed no error of jurisdiction in permitting the statement of the plaintiff to be recorded in view of the fact that he was about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. Indeed he was about to leave the country itself. Learned counsel, however, placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1952 Allahabad 279 (Hamid Husain Khan v. Masood Hussain khan)- This case is clearly distinguishable. It was a case where the objection with regard to court fee had been raised by the Inspector of Stamps. To such a case sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 6 of the Court fee Act was applicable. There is a marked difference in the phraseology between sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 6. In a case where an objection with reard to Court fee is raised by an officer mentioned in section 24-A of the Court fees Act, the case could be covered by sub-section 3 of section 6 and in that event the court is prohibited absolutely from proceeding further with the suit until the finding as to sufficiency of court fee had been recorded by it. In contrast sub-section (4) of section 6 provides that the Court shall not proceed with any other issue before deciding the issue of court fee. It will thus be seen that the restriction under sub-section (3) of section 6 is much greater than sub-section (4) of section 6. In the former the court below is prohibited absolutely from proceeding further with the suit until it has recorded a finding whether the court fee paid is sufficient. That is, the court is barred from proceeding altogether from taking any steps until it has decided the matter of sufficiency of court fees. On the contrary under sub-section (4) the only prohibition is that the court shall not proceed with any other issue until it decides the question of proper amount of court-fee. The prohibition under sub-section (4) is only with regard to proceeding with other issues.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in the objection raised by the defendant against the procedure adopted by the court below. Thus there is no merit in the revision which is dismissed. The interim orders are discharged. The court below is, however, directed to dispose of the issue of court fee as a first issue before taking up any other issue. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.;