Judgment:
R.C. Jain, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Thisappeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.1997passed by the learned Trial Court and that of theAdditional District Judge, dated 24.7.2001, by which asuit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sumof Rs.8,703.28 and delivery of ST1 forms for a value ofRs.13,811.97 or in the alternative to the ST1 forms forthe amount of sales tax at the rate of 7% was decreed.The petitioner/defendant contested the suit on a varietyof grounds fully taken note by both the courts below andfound no merits in the defense put forth on behalf of thedefendant.
2. The impugned order is sought to be assailedmainly on the ground that the judgments of the courtsmainly on the ground that the judgments of the courtsbelow are legally untenable and several substantivequestions of law as detailed in the memorandum of appealarise for consideration in this appeal. One suchquestion raised about the power and jurisdiction of thetrial court in permitting the plaintiff/respondent tomaintain the present suit by exempting the plaintiff frompaying the court fee on the second claim about handingover the ST1 form or in the alternative for paying theamount at the rate of 7% on the amount of the Bills.
3. According to the learned counsel for theappellant the provisions of the Court Fee Act and theCivil Procedure Code are mandatory and the trial courtwas not justified in entertaining the suit/plaint, oncethe court fee paid was insufficient/deficient. Insupport of her contentions the learned counsel for theappellant has placed reliance upon the Division Benchjudgment of this court in the case of Sahara IndiaAirlines Ltd. Vs . R.A.Singh : 1997(43)DRJ217 . On the facts of the said case, the court heldthat the provisions of law contained in Section 4 of FeesAct and under Order 6 Rule 11 (c) CPC are couched inlanguage which shows that the payment of court feesprescribed in the first or second schedule of the Act ismandatory before a plaint or other documents orinstruments referred to in the Section can be proceededwith. The facts and circumstances of the above statedcase are distinguishable as the court granted blanketexemption to the plaintiff to file suit without paymentof court fee with the stipulation that the court feecould be paid once the suit was decreed. In the case inhand the plaintiff had paid the requisite court fee onthe amount claimed by him and he had also undertaken topay the court fee on the amount of second claim becauseof the contingency that the defendant could have handedover ST1 Form and if he failed to do so the amounttowards the sales tax was payable. The trial court whilepassing the decree has directed the plaintiff to payproper court fee on the balance amount so decreed in thatbehalf within one month and that seems to be apermissible course. In my view no fault can be foundwith the order on this count. The contention of thelearned counsel for the appellant that the amount ofdeficient the court fee was not paid within thestipulated period of one month and the court extended thetime to the appellant and on that account also thedefendant has suffered has no merits.
4. It was next contended that the learned trialcourt and the appellate court has erred in relying andacting upon certain documents which have not been provedin accordance with law. On the face of the materialavailable on record, this contention cannot be upheld.In any case this is a pure finding on fact which thiscourt while sitting in second appeal is not expected tolook into. Submission has also been made that certainclaims towards the costs of notice etc. have beenallowed along with interest and cost which is quiteunusual and is not in accordance with prevalent practice.It may do so but a plaintiff who incurs expenditure inconnection with the recovery of his claim is entitled toclaim the said expenses and should not be deprived of thelegitimate expenses in that behalf.
5. Having considered the matter in its entirety,this court is of the view that no substantial question oflaw has been raised in this appeal which requiresconsideration by this court. The judgment of the trialcourt and the first appellate court are based on soundreasoning and proper appreciation of the matter and thefinding are correct in law as well as on facts. Nointerference is called for.
6. Dismissed.