A. Banerji, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 20-8-1977 passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur, deciding issue No. 4. The issue was, 'Whether the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient?' The learned District Judge held that the court fees paid by the plaintiffs was sufficient and the suit has been rightly valued.
(2.) THE plaintiffs had filed a suit for two reliefs, namely, for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the entire property detailed in the plaint and secondly, for permanent injunction against the Administrator General, defendant No. 1 restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the property in suit or withdrawing money in Central Bank of India, Mirzapur and Post Office and elsewhere or in the firm standing in the name or Khata of Sri Bhairo Prasad deceased. THE learned District Judge held that the court fees of Rs. 200/- paid for the aforesaid first relief and Rs. 500/- paid for the second relief was more than that was due under the U. P. Court fees Act. He held that the relief of injunction flowed directly from the right which the plaintiffs have desired to be declared and amounted to a consequential relief. THE suit was, therefore, held to be covered by the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE learned District Judge, however, applied the provisions of Section 7 (iv-B) of the Act to hold that Rs. 500/- would be the maximum amount of court fees leviable for the relief of injunction, and in regard to the relief for declaratory decree the learned District Judge applied the provisions of item No. 17 (in) (d) of Schedule II of the Act and held that the proper fees would be Rs. 200/-. This appeal came up before us on the 12th September, 1984 and after hearing learned Chief Standing Counsel and the counsel for the defendant-respondents, we proceeded to dictate an order and completed it, but before signing the same certain doubts arose and we directed that the matter be listed for further hearing. The case was thereafter listed before us on 28th September, 1984 when we heard the counsel once again. We now proceed to give our reasons. The present appeal has been filed by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, U. P. under section 6-B of the Court Fees Act. Originally, it was headed as Civil Revision, but the office reported that it should be filed as First Appeal From Order and that it would be cognizable by a Bench of two Judges. The matter thereafter came up before a Division Bench when it was admitted on 14th of December, 1977 for hearing.
(3.) THE provision of Section 6-B of the Act empowers the Chief Inspector . of Stamps to file an application in writing to the court to which an appeal lies from a decree in the suit if the order of the court passed under sub-section (3) of Section 6 is at variance with the opinion of the officer by whom the question of deficiency in court-fee has been raised. Such an application has to be made within three months from the date of the receipt of the order by the Chief Inspector of Stamps. Sub-section (2) of Section 6-B of the Act lays down that if the Court is of the opinion that proper court-fee had not been paid on the claim to which the order relates, it shall record a declaration to that effect and determine the amount of deficiency in court fee. THEre is a proviso to sub-section (2) which lays down that no declaration shall be made until the party liable to pay the court-fee has had an opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act requires the Court to record a finding whether the court fee paid is sufficient or not where a question of deficiency in court fee in respect of a plaint or memorandum of appeal is raised by the officer under section 24-A of the Act. In the event it is found by the court that the court fee paid is insufficient, the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, may be called upon to make good the deficiency within a time fixed by the court and in case of default reject the plaint or the memorandum of appeal. Section 6-A of the Act affords an opportunity to a person to file an appeal where he has been called upon to make good the deficiency in court fee. Where, however, the Court rules that there is no deficiency and overrules the objection of the officer, who is empowered to raise such objections, the Stamp Reporter or the Munsarim, Chief Inspector of Stamps is entitled to move the appellate court under section 6-B of the Act.;