Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
bihar state weaker sections legal aid act, 1983 - court fee-remission--requirement of statutory certificate--for eligibility--though a legal aid committee is not functioning in a district, a statutory certificate from the legal aid committee required for remission of court fee. - - learned counsel submitted that the court below has committed serious illegality in so far as it failed to take into consideration the fact that legal aid committee was constituted in jehanabad in september, 1994 and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to approach the legal aid committee in the year 1992 for seeking remission in the payment of court fee. learned counsel further submitted that no permission of the legal aid committee was required and the court below has failed to appreciate this fact while passing the order. the learned counsel further submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration the certificate granted by the secretary, district legal aid committee, civil court, jehanabad to the effect that the committee was constituted on 24.9.94, a copy of such certificate has been annexed and marked annexure 3 to this petition. m.y. eqbal, j.1. in the aforementioned civil revision applications common question of law and facts have been raised and, therefore, these civil revision applications are disposed of by this common order.2. civil revision no. 1363 of 1998 arises out of an order dated 4.4.98 passed by subordinate judge-iv, at jehanabad in money suit no. 2/92. similarly civil revision no. 1364 of 1998 is directed against an order dated 3.4.92 passed by the same court in money suit no. 3/92. civil revision no. 1365/98 arises out of an order dated 3.4.98 passed by the same court in money suit no. 6/92. by the impugned orders the court below recalled its earlier order dated 17.7.92 granting remission in the payment of court fee.3. money suit no. 2/92 was filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the defendant opposite party for recovery of rs. 1,55.996/- being the insurance claim. the plaintiff initially filed an application in the aforesaid suit seeking exemption from payment of court fee on the basis of an income certificate granted by the circle officer, karpi, jehanabad to the effect that the annual income of the plaintiff was only rs. 4500/-. the court below on the basis of such certificate by order dated 28.9.92 granted exemption from payment of court fee. the plaintiff of money suit no. 3 of 1992 claimed a decree against the defendant for recovery of rs. 6,00,582.00 on account of insurance claim. in this suit also on the basis of income certificate granted by the circle officer, karpi the court below by order dated 27.3.92 granted exemption from payment of court fee. similarly the plaintiff of money suit no. 6/92 claimed a decree of rs. 24,02,346/on account of insurance claim. in this suit also on the basis of income certificate the court below by order dated 17.7.92 granted exemption from payment of court fee. in all these suits the defendants appeared and filed application for the recall of those orders whereby the plaintiff was granted exemption from payment of court fee on the grounds stated in those applications. the court below after hearing the parties recalled those orders and directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee. hence these civil revision applications.4. in civil revision no. 1365/98 the opposite party filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that petitioner no. 2 fraudulently and dishonestly in connivance with the officials of the l.i.c. and other subsidiary general insurance corporation obtained insurance policies of rs. 36,75,000/- on the life of anil kumar singh a non-existent person showing himself his minor son as a nominee declaring that the said anil kumar singh died on 29.12.1988 in a road accident caused by a running truck. it is further stated that besides those policies the petitioner also purchased a policy from jan priya finance and some other non-banking finance companies and there also claims have been lodged. it is stated that the petitioner obtained different policies from different subsidiaries at different places namely calcutta, bombay, delhi and madras and submitted different claims at different places simultaneously. in the meantime the patna branch of c.b.i. on receipt of complaint from inspector of police, c.b.i. registered a case against the plaintiffs under sections 120b. 420/511, 467 and 471 of the indian penal code. it is further stated that the c.b.i. after thorough investigation found materials to proceed against the petitioner and after investigation the claim of the petitioner was not found genuine and he was directed to be prosecuted. it is further stated that the plaintiffs thereafter filed aforementioned suits in the court below for recovery of the amount and fraudulently obtained an order of exemption in payment of court fee on the basis of forged and fabricated income certificate. it is further stated that in the plaint itself the deceased anil kumar singh was shown as regular income tax payee and having different sources of income.5. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the correctness of the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. learned counsel submitted that the court below has committed serious illegality in so far as it failed to take into consideration the fact that legal aid committee was constituted in jehanabad in september, 1994 and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to approach the legal aid committee in the year 1992 for seeking remission in the payment of court fee. learned counsel further submitted that no permission of the legal aid committee was required and the court below has failed to appreciate this fact while passing the order. the learned counsel further submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration the certificate granted by the secretary, district legal aid committee, civil court, jehanabad to the effect that the committee was constituted on 24.9.94, a copy of such certificate has been annexed and marked annexure 3 to this petition.6. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the court below. it has not been disputed that after the enforcement of bihar state weaker sections legal aid act, 1983 and in view of the ratio decided in the case of chandra nath v. janak kishore devi 1992 (1) pljr 760, remission in respect of court fee can be granted only on receipt of statutory certificate of eligibility in the prescribed form from the legal aid committee. the court below, therefore, rightly passed the impugned order recalling its earlier order whereby remission was granted in the payment of court fee. however, the case of the petitioner is that the legal aid committee was made in the district of jehanabad only in september, 1994 and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to approach the legal aid committee and get a statutory certificate. in that view of the matter, the court below ought to have granted time to the plaintiff for obtaining statutory certificate from the legal aid committee as required under the aforesaid act or deposit the court fee.7. for the reasons aforesaid, all these civil revision applications are dismissed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the plaintiffs are directed either to pay requisite court fee stamp or to file a statutory certificate as required under the bihar state weaker sections legal-aid act, 1983, within two months from today, falling which the court will pass order in accordance with law.

Judgment:

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In the aforementioned civil revision applications common question of law and facts have been raised and, therefore, these civil revision applications are disposed of by this common order.

2. Civil Revision No. 1363 of 1998 arises out of an order dated 4.4.98 passed by Subordinate Judge-IV, at Jehanabad in Money Suit No. 2/92. Similarly Civil Revision No. 1364 of 1998 is directed against an order dated 3.4.92 passed by the same Court in Money Suit No. 3/92. Civil Revision No. 1365/98 arises out of an order dated 3.4.98 passed by the same Court in Money Suit No. 6/92. By the impugned orders the Court below recalled its earlier order dated 17.7.92 granting remission in the payment of Court fee.

3. Money Suit No. 2/92 was filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the defendant opposite party for recovery of Rs. 1,55.996/- being the insurance claim. The plaintiff initially filed an application in the aforesaid suit seeking exemption from payment of Court fee on the basis of an income certificate granted by the Circle Officer, Karpi, Jehanabad to the effect that the annual income of the plaintiff was only Rs. 4500/-. The Court below on the basis of such certificate by order dated 28.9.92 granted exemption from payment of Court fee. The plaintiff of Money Suit No. 3 of 1992 claimed a decree against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 6,00,582.00 on account of insurance claim. In this suit also on the basis of income certificate granted by the Circle Officer, Karpi the Court below by order dated 27.3.92 granted exemption from payment of Court fee. Similarly the plaintiff of Money Suit No. 6/92 claimed a decree of Rs. 24,02,346/on account of insurance claim. In this suit also on the basis of income certificate the Court below by order dated 17.7.92 granted exemption from payment of Court fee. In all these suits the defendants appeared and filed application for the recall of those orders whereby the plaintiff was granted exemption from payment of Court fee on the grounds stated in those applications. The Court below after hearing the parties recalled those orders and directed the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court fee. Hence these civil revision applications.

4. In Civil Revision No. 1365/98 the opposite party filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that petitioner No. 2 fraudulently and dishonestly in connivance with the officials of the L.I.C. and other Subsidiary General Insurance Corporation obtained insurance policies of Rs. 36,75,000/- on the life of Anil Kumar Singh a non-existent person showing himself his minor son as a nominee declaring that the said Anil Kumar Singh died on 29.12.1988 in a road accident caused by a running truck. It is further stated that besides those policies the petitioner also purchased a policy from Jan Priya Finance and some other non-banking finance companies and there also claims have been lodged. It is stated that the petitioner obtained different policies from different subsidiaries at different places namely Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi and Madras and submitted different claims at different places simultaneously. In the meantime the Patna Branch of C.B.I. on receipt of complaint from Inspector of Police, C.B.I. registered a case against the plaintiffs under Sections 120B. 420/511, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated that the C.B.I. after thorough investigation found materials to proceed against the petitioner and after investigation the claim of the petitioner was not found genuine and he was directed to be prosecuted. It Is further stated that the plaintiffs thereafter filed aforementioned suits in the Court below for recovery of the amount and fraudulently obtained an order of exemption in payment of Court fee on the basis of forged and fabricated income certificate. It is further stated that in the plaint itself the deceased Anil Kumar Singh was shown as regular income tax payee and having different sources of income.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the correctness of the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the Court below has committed serious illegality in so far as it failed to take into consideration the fact that Legal Aid Committee was constituted in Jehanabad in September, 1994 and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to approach the Legal Aid Committee in the year 1992 for seeking remission in the payment of Court fee. Learned Counsel further submitted that no permission of the Legal Aid Committee was required and the Court below has failed to appreciate this fact while passing the order. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below has failed to take into consideration the certificate granted by the Secretary, District Legal Aid Committee, Civil Court, Jehanabad to the effect that the Committee was constituted on 24.9.94, a copy of such certificate has been annexed and marked Annexure 3 to this petition.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. It has not been disputed that after the enforcement of Bihar State Weaker Sections Legal Aid Act, 1983 and in view of the ratio decided in the case of Chandra Nath v. Janak Kishore Devi 1992 (1) PLJR 760, remission in respect of Court fee can be granted only on receipt of statutory certificate of eligibility in the prescribed form from the Legal Aid Committee. The Court below, therefore, rightly passed the impugned order recalling Its earlier order whereby remission was granted in the payment of Court fee. However, the case of the petitioner is that the Legal Aid Committee was made in the district of Jehanabad only In September, 1994 and therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to approach the Legal Aid Committee and get a statutory certificate. In that view of the matter, the Court below ought to have granted time to the plaintiff for obtaining statutory certificate from the Legal Aid Committee as required under the aforesaid Act or deposit the Court fee.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, all these civil revision applications are dismissed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the plaintiffs are directed either to pay requisite Court fee stamp or to file a statutory certificate as required under the Bihar State Weaker Sections Legal-Aid Act, 1983, within two months from today, falling which the Court will pass order in accordance with law.