B.D.Gupta, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Varanasi, claiming certain reliefs, land paid a certain court fee on the plaint. The Inspector of Stamps filed a report that the court fee paid on the plaint was insufficient, the assertion being that the claim set forward in the plaint fell within a category under which additional court fee was payable. The plaintiffs filed objections against the said report and the matter was heard by the learned Civil Judge who held that the court fee paid was sufficient. There is no controversy that against the decision of the learned Civil Judge no revision under Section 6-B of the Court Fees Act was filed. The suit was decreed in certain terms, and against that decree the defendant filed this first appeal. The Stamp Reporter of this Court made a report that there was deficiency of Rs. 33/- on the memo of appeal filed in this Court, and that there was also a deficiency of Rs. 18/12/- due from the plaintiff-respondents in respect of the plaint in the court below. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P., made another report to the effect that there was deficiency to the extent of Rs. 705.63 P. on the memo of appeal in this Court, as also a similar deficiency on the plaint. Under Chapter XI, Rule 6, Clause (3), of the Rules of this Court when the deficiency relates to a document received in this Court, it is the duty of the Taxing Officer to decide this controversy, whereas, under Clause (4), when the deficiency relates to a document received in the lower court, the controversy is decided by the Court itself. The Joint Registrar, by order dated the 17th of March, 1964, directed the matter to be laid before the Court with the observation that the matter is first decided by the Court and then by the Taxing Officer. Notice of this controversy was given to the Standing Counsel, who has appeared at the hearing today.
(2.) Mr. S.P. Kumar, counsel for the appellant, has urged that, in view of the fact that the Chief Inspector of Stamps did sot question the decision of the learned Civil Judge by filing revision under Section 6-B of the Court Fees Act, it is no longer open to this Court to go into that question. He has also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Katori v. Chaman Lal, 1961 A.L.J.R. 884 for the contention that in the present case this Court has no power to direct payment of any additional court fee on the plaint.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and am of the opinion that the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant must be upheld. There is no controversy that, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 6 of Ch. XI of the Rules of Court, which appear to have been drawn up in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, the Court has no power to go into the question of deficiency on the memo of appeal. Reliance by learned counsel for that State has been placed on clause(4) of Rule 6 of Ch. XI of the Rules of this Court for the contention that this Court has power to direct payment of deficiency relating to a document received in a lower court. Clause (4) runs as follows:- "Where the deficiency relates to a document received in a lower court, the report together with the objection shall be laid before the Court for orders." The rule is merely procedural and does not by itself, confer power on the Court to direct payment of deficiency of court fee. The only statutory provision, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the State, is Section 12 of the Court Fees Act. The decision of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Katori v. Chaman Lal 1961 A.L.J.R. 884 (supra) has clearly laid down that Section 12 of the Court Fees Act must be confined to questions relating to "valuation" for the purpose of determining the amount of court fee. In the case before me the position is the same as in the case before the learned Judges who decided the above case. The correctness of the valuation has not been questioned. The only question raised is whether, on the valuation put upon the relief, the correct amount of court fee has been paid. The point raised by the Chief Inspector of Stamps does not related to valuation at all but to the category under which court fee is chargeable. It is, therefore, clear that Section 12 is inapplicable. Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed to any other provision under which this Court, sitting as a court of appeal, can go into the question for the purpose of deciding whether the court fee paid on the plaint was sufficient or otherwise. In so far as a report of deficiency in respect of such a document is founded on the assertion that higher court fee is payable on the ground that the claim set forward was chargeable under a particular category, this Court is powerless to take action, and it is obvious that, Clause (4) of Rule 6 cannot be construed as conferring on this Court a power which it does not possess. Clause (4) must to my mind, be construed as confined in its application to cases in which a question of valuation, as distinguished from a question of category, is raised in support of the contention that the court fee paid on a plaint or written statement filed in the lower court was insufficient. It is obvious that Clause (4) cannot be construed as conferring on this Court a power which it does not posses.;