SAHAI,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This case has come to us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us. (Lakshmi Prasad and Gur Sharan Lal, JJ.).
(2.) IN First Appeal No. 29 of 1961 the Stamp Reporter reported a deficiency of Rs. 6632.50 in Court fee. The report of the Stamp Reporter was contested by the learned counsel for the appellant before the Taxing Officer (Deputy Registrar). The Taxing Officer held by means of an order dated 5-9-1961 that the report of the Stamp Reporter was correct and in fact there was a deficiency of Rs. 6632.50. He however allowed a months time to the appellant to make good the deficiency. A request was made to the Taxing Officer to make a reference to the Judge appointed by the Chief Justice to decide generally references made by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Act, hereinafter called the Taxing Judge, (Sahgal, J.). This, the Taxing Officer refused to do. Dissatisfied with the refusal of the Taxing Officer to make a reference to the Taxing Judge under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Court Fees Act the appellant filed writ petition no. 252 of 1961 and prayed that the order of the Taxing Officer be quashed. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of the Taxing Officer dated 5-9-1961. It directed the Taxing Officer to make a reference to the Taxing Judge. The Taxing Officer then made a reference to the Taxing Judge and the Taxing Judge by means of an order dated 27-10-1967 referred the question to a larger Bench as to what would be the correct court fee payable in the instant case. As already stated earlier, that matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court of which two of us were members (Lakshmi Prasad and Gur Sharan Lal, JJ.).
(3.) IN view of the conflict of authority on the question whether a Taxing Judge acting under the provisions of Section 5 of the Court Fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can refer a question to a larger Bench for decision, the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench referred the case to a Full Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.;