- (1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah, by which he directed the appellant, who had filed an appeal under section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951, and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 1/- only, to state the previous valuation of the premises and "to pay Court-fees on the difference between that valuation and the valuation fixed by the Corporation...."
(2.) It is not disputed before us that if any fees have been prescribed by the Government under section 577 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, court-fees should be paid thereunder. A notification has been published under section 577 of the Municipal Act sometime after the present appeal was filed. Consequently the provisions of this notification do not apply to the) present case. There was however a corresponding provision in section 529 of the old Municipal Act (Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923) and under that section a notification was published on the 3rd July, 1937, fixing for an appeal under section 141 of the old Act against a valuation made under Chapter X for the purpose of assessing land or buildings "the fee which would for the time being be levied in the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta or in a Civil Court other than the High Court or such Court of Small Causes, according as) the appeal is made to the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta or to any other Court of Small Causes, on a plaint in a suit of a value equivalent tot the amount which would be payable as consolidated rate for one year on the difference between the valuation against which the appeal is preferred and the valuation which the appellant seeks to have substituted therefor." Under the provisions of section 25 of the Bengal General Clauses' Act, this notification issued under section 529 of the old Municipal Act must be deemed to have been made under section 577 of the present Act until the date of the notification since then published under the new Act. Clearly therefore the appellant has to pay Court-fees on the amount of what would be payable as consolidated rate on the excess of the valuation against which the appeal is preferred over the valuation which the appellant seeks to have substituted therefor. The appellant has not, it appears, stated the valuation which he wants to have substituted for the valuation against which the appeal is preferred, He must therefore state the valuation which he wants to have substituted for the valuation against which the appeal is preferred and the valuation which he seeks to have substituted therefor.
(3.) We accordingly make this Rule absolute, set aside the order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, at Sealdah and direct the petitioner to state the valuation which he wants substituted for the valuation appealed against as mentioned above and to pay the court-fees in accordance with the directions given above, within such time as may be fixed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge. Parties will bear their own costs in this Court.;