- (1.) THIS is a revision under Sec. 6-B of the court-fees Act by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P., against the order of the Additional District Judge of Saharanpur, holding that the Court-fee payable on E. E. Act Appeal No. 3 of 1958 (Ugger Sen v. Inamul Haq. and others), was under Schedule II, Art. 11 of the Court-fees Act and the Court-fee paid was sufficient.
(2.) THE material facts of the case are that the Judgment-debtors, ex-zaminaars applied under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act, 1952 (to be referred hereinafter as the Debt Reduction Act) (U.P. Act No. XV of 1953) for the reduction of the amount of decree which the Special Judge II Grade had passed in favour of Ugger Sen. The Special Judge reduced the amount, but before he could transmit information to the Collector under Sec. 19-A of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 (to be referred hereinafter as the E. E. Act), Ugger Sen challenged the order by way of appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was premature and not maintainable. The Special Judge II Grade thereafter took action under Sec. 19-A and informed the Collector of the reduction made in the decree. He apparently also gave the certificate contemplated by cl. (b) of Sec. 19-A. Ugger Sen then preferred an appeal against the order under Sec. 19-A of the E. E. Act and this appeal was registered as E. E. Act Appeal No. 3 of 1958. Ugger Sen affixed a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2.50 False on the memorandum of appeal treating it as an appeal from an order covered by Schedule II, Art. 11 of the Court-fees Act. The appeal was valued at Rs. 38,172.50 False. The Inspector of Stamps raised an objection that the court-fee paid was not sufficient and ad valorem court-fee under Sch. I, Art. 1 was payable. The respondents also raised a similar objection. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, rejected the objection raised by the Inspector of Stamps and also by the respondents, chiefly on the ground that Ugger Sen had three remedies available, one, to file a revision against the order under Sec. 4 of the Debt Reduction Act, the other by challenging the order under Sec. 19-A of the E. E. Act by preferring an appeal, and the third by appealing against the amended decree.
(3.) THE learned District Judge did not consider the provisions of the Court-fees Act, but as he was of the opinion that the amended decree, which came into existence by the fiction of law, was also appealable, he thought that for an appeal against the order under Sec. 19-A, a fixed court-fee of Rs. 2.50 as for an appeal from an order was payable.;