Radhamma Vs. Srivasthava - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. - 3. it is well settled principle as formulated by rawlatt, j. (1921 (1) kb 64) that in a fiscal statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said.orderj.b. koshy, j.1. question to be considered in this order is regarding the rate of court fee payable for filing contempt of court cases in the high court when there are more than one petitioner. item 11(1) of ii schedule of the kerala court fees and suits valuation act, 1959 reads as follows:(i) a munsiff s court- (1) under the madras village court act, 1888 (madrasact 1 of 1889), or the cochin village courts act, xii of 1118 or thetravancore village panchayat courts act, 1090. ten rupees (2) in other cases twenty five rupees (ii) the sub court or a district court fifty rupees (iii) the high court one hundred rupees per petitioner (iv) for contempt of court cases in the high court one hundred rupees.' 2. this contempt of court case is filed alleging that annexure a1 judgment in o.p. no. 21201 of 1998 was not implemented. the above original petition was filed by seven persons. therefore, when contempt of court case was filed all the seven persons joined as complainants (petitioners). registry insisted that since there are seven complainants, seven sets of court fees (rs. 100 x 7 = rs. 700/-) shall be paid. hence this reference.3. it is well settled principle as formulated by rawlatt, j. in cape brandy syndicate v. i.r.c. (1921 (1) kb 64) that in a fiscal statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. there is no room for any intendment. there is no equity or presumption when words are clear. nothing is to be read in or to be added on or implied as one can only look at the language used. (see also mathuram agrawal v. state of madhya pradesh (jt 1999 (8) sc 505 at para 11)).under schedule ii item 1(4), for filing ccc in the high court fee prescribed is rs. 100/-. whereas under sub-clause (3) for filing original petitions before the high court, fee is rs. 100/- per petitioner. the words per petitioner are conspicuously absent here. therefore, fee prescribed for filing ccc is only rs. 100/- irrespective of the number of petitioners. registry should number the case.

Judgment:
ORDER

J.B. Koshy, J.

1. Question to be considered in this order is regarding the rate of court fee payable for filing contempt of court cases in the High Court when there are more than one petitioner. Item 11(1) of II Schedule of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 reads as follows:

(i)

A Munsiff s Court-

(1)

Under the Madras Village Court Act, 1888 (MadrasAct 1 of 1889), or the Cochin Village Courts Act, XII of 1118 or theTravancore Village Panchayat Courts Act, 1090.

Ten rupees

(2)

in other cases

Twenty Five rupees

(ii)

the Sub Court or a District Court

Fifty rupees

(iii)

the High Court

One hundred rupees per petitioner

(iv)

for Contempt of Court Cases in the High Court

One hundred rupees.'

2. This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging that Annexure A1 judgment in O.P. No. 21201 of 1998 was not implemented. The above Original Petition was filed by seven persons. Therefore, when contempt of court case was filed all the seven persons joined as complainants (petitioners). Registry insisted that since there are seven complainants, seven sets of court fees (Rs. 100 x 7 = Rs. 700/-) shall be paid. Hence this reference.

3. It is well settled principle as formulated by Rawlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. I.R.C. (1921 (1) KB 64) that in a fiscal statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity or presumption when words are clear. Nothing is to be read in or to be added on or implied as one can only look at the language used. (See also Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (JT 1999 (8) SC 505 at para 11)).

Under Schedule II Item 1(4), for filing CCC in the High Court fee prescribed is Rs. 100/-. Whereas under Sub-clause (3) for filing original petitions before the High Court, fee is Rs. 100/- per petitioner. The words per petitioner are conspicuously absent here. Therefore, fee prescribed for filing CCC is only Rs. 100/- irrespective of the number of petitioners. Registry should number the case.