C.K.PRASAD,C.J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This appeal has come up for consideration before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge by his order dated 18th of August 1975. The facts, which led the learned Single Judge to make reference, are as follows:- The plaintiff is the appellant. The defendants are his sole selling agent and the plaintiff filed the suit for accounting against the defendants in respect of commission sale made by them at its sole selling agent. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 15437.50 and on the suit so valued, paid an ad-valorem court fee of Rs. 1208.25. The trial court decreed the suit with cost on 9th September 1958 but While decreeing so, directed that for the purpose of commission the account of sale effected by the defendants between 18th February 1951 to 15th February 1954, shall alone be considered. It further observed that defendants 3 to 5 shall not be personally liable for the decretal liability. Three first appeals were filed in this Court, one at the instance of the plaintiff, other filed by defendants 3 to 5 and third by the defendant firm and in each of these appeals, the appellants paid a court fee at Rs. 1208.25 respectively on the memorandum of appeal. However, before these appeals could be taken up and disposed of by this Court, all were transferred to the court of District Judge, Kanpur in view of the provisions of U.P. Civil Law Amendment Act, 1970. On transfer, these appeals were heard by 1st Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, who by his judgment and decree dated 3rd of July 1972 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff with cost and the appeal filed by defendants 3 to 5 was allowed. As regards, the appeal preferred by the defendant firm, the same was partly allowed and the decree of the trial court was modified.
(2.) AGAINST aforesaid judgment and decree, plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal in this Court and he valued the appeal at Rs. 15437.50 on which court fee of Rs. 1570.00 was payable. However, the appellant did not pay the court fee but stated that "no court fee is being paid, as the plaintiff appellant contends that the provisions of the Court Fees Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh from time to time are ultra vires the State Legislature, void and unenforceable inasmuch as the amount of fee prescribed by the provisions of that Act bears no relation to the cost of administering justice." As the plea involved necessity of payment of court fee, a reference was made under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, in which, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: "It would, therefore, be necessary in this case to find out whether the ad-valorem court fees imposed amounts to a tax. It will, therefore, be necessary to see if there is some sort of a co-relation between the income from court fees and the expenditure incurred for the administration of justice in this State."
(3.) THE learned Judge directed the matter to be laid before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for decision of the following question:- "Whether the provisions of the Court-Fees Act as amended from time to time in the State of Uttar Pradesh are ultra vires of State Legislature." ;