- (1.) The plaintiff originally instituted the suit in the Civil Court at Delhi but it was held that Delhi Court had no jurisdiction with the result that the plaint was returned for being presented to the proper Court. The plaintiff thereupon re-presented the plaint in the Court at Ambala. The plaint bore the court-fee stamp affixed on it when it was earlier instituted in the Delhi Court. The defendants raised the objection that court-fee stamp bearing the stamp of Delhi State was not proper court-fee when used in the Courts in the State of Punjab and therefore the plaint was not properly stamped.
(2.) The court-fee stamp affixed on the plaint, naturally bore the words "Delhi State" having been purchased at Delhi. The trial Court thought that administration of justice, except where it relates to the Supreme Court and the High Court, is a State subject and therefore the court-fee stamps purchased in Delhi could not be used in the Court in the State of Punjab. On this view the plaintiff was ordered to make up the deficiency in court-fee. The plaintiff has come up to this Court on revision against the above order. Considering the importance of the point to the State of Punjab I requested Shri L.D. Kaushal, Deputy Advocate-General, to assist this Court as amicus curiae find he very kindly agreed to do so.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Sodhi for the petitioner, Mr. Sarin for the respondents and Mr. L.D. Kaushal as amicus curiae. My attention has also been drawn to a recent decision by S.B. Capoor, J. while sitting in the Circuit Bench at Delhi (Civil Revn. No. 482-D of 1956) where the court-fee orginally affixed on the plaint was held to be the proper court-fee in the following circumstances. The Punjab Government filed a suit against R.R. Madho Parshad and others in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, who held that the Gurgaon Court had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court after cancelling the court-fee stamps on the plaint.;