Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Jalso Bai vs Surendra Kumar on 7 June, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MA-1057-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MA-1057-2021
(SMT. JALSO BAI AND OTHERS Vs SURENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the appellants.
Heard on I.A.No.3211/2021, which is an application for ignoring the
objection raised by the registry of this Court regarding payment of deficit
Court fees.
Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of aforesaid
application are that the appellants filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the
award dated 22/01/2021 passed by MACT, Mandla in Claim Case
No.778/2018 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal to the applicants. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement of a
sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Office put the objection that appeal is not maintainable
without payment of Court fees on that enhanced amount i.e. Rs.6,00,000/-.
Present application has been filed for overruling that objection.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to Article
11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act 2.5% Court fees should be paid on
the enhanced amount. The amount claimed by the appellants in the appeal
cannot be called as enhanced amount, but the enhanced amount will be such
as would be given by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the
appellants. Registry wrongly demanded 2.5% Court fees on the amount
which is claimed by the appellants in the memo of appeal. There is no
certainty as to what amount will be awarded by the Court. Appellants are only
required to pay Court fee on the amount which will be determined as
enhanced amount by this Court at the time of judgement of this appeal. So
appellants may be allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final
decision of the appeal on enhanced compensation, which may be determined
Signature Not Verified
SAN
by the Court. In this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on this
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.06.07 17:46:23 IST
2 MA-1057-2021
Court'™s judgments passed in Preetam Lal Garg Vs. Vijay Kumar
Gujrati, passed in MA.No.852/2015 vide order dated 21/12/2016, Smt.
Sushma Dhurve & Others Vs. Dayal Singh & Others passed in
MA.No.5539/2019 vide order dated 19/12/2019, Suresh Maravi Vs.
Akash Singh Rajput & Others passed in MA.No.1996/2020 vide order
dated 10/09/2020 and Ravi Shankar Vs. Arjun Lal & Others passed in
M.A.No.2187/2020 vide order dated 23/09/2020.
This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by
the counsel of the appellants. This appeal has been filed by the appellants u/s
173 Motor Vehicle Act. The memo of appeal preferred u/s 173 Motor Vehicle
Act is required to be affixed with Court Fees as per Article 11 of Schedule II
of Court fees Act, which reads as thus:-
œ(a) when presented to the High Court-
(i) By the claimant for enhancement of 2.5 percent of the
amount of award passed by the Motor enhanced amount
Accident Claims Tribunal. Claimed in appeal
From the wordings of the provisions of Article 11 of Schedule II of
Court fees Act Â"2.5 percent of the enhanced amount claimed in
appeal" it is clear that court fees will be paid on that enhanced amount which
is claimed by the appellants in their appeal memo and not on the amount
which will be determined by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the
appellants and the court fees is payable at the time of presentation of the
appeal not after judgement.
Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 bars the Court from receiving
plaint/appeal if it does not bear the proper court fees. Although Section 149
CPC acts as an exception to the said bar and enables the Court to permit the
plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees at a subsequent stage. But this Section
also does not give unfettered power to Court for giving time to applicant for
paying Court fee.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John & Ors vs. V. N.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 in pera 23 of its judgement observed as
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.06.07 17:46:23 IST
3 MA-1057-2021
thus:-
"the Section 149 CPC does not confer an absolute right in
favour of a plaintiff to pay the court fee as and when it pleases the
plaintiff. It only enables a plaintiff to seek the indulgence of the
Court to permit the payment of court fee at a point of time later
than the presentation of the plaint. The exercise of the discretion
by the Court is conditional upon the satisfaction of the Court that
the plaintiff offered a legally acceptable explanation for not paying
the court fee within the period of limitation."
Order 7 rule 11 of CPC also provides that the plaint shall be rejected
(c) "Âœwhere the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the
Court, fails to do so."
The Judgements of this court passed in the case of Smt. Sushma
Dhurve & Others Vs. Dayal Singh & Others (MA.No.5539/2019), Suresh
Maravi Vs. Akash Singh Rajput & Others (MA.No.1996/2020) (supra)
relied by the learned counsel of the applicants do not much help to the
appellants. In the aforementioned cases this Court did not lay down any
principle that appellants are required to pay court fee only on that amount
which enhanced by the court after adjudication of appeal and court fee will be
paid after adjudication of the appeal by this court.
Although, this Court in the case of Preetam Lal Garg Vs. Vijay
Kumar Gujrati, (MA.No.852/2015) and Ravi Shankar Vs. Arjun Lal &
Others (M.A.No.2187/2020) this Court gave the permission to the appellants
of these cases that they will be permitted to pay court fees on the enhanced
amount after judgement in the appeal. But in these cases also this court did
not lay down any principle that appellants are required to pay court fee only
on the amount enhanced by the court in the appeal and that the court fee will
Signature Not Verified
be paid after adjudication of the appeal by the court. The orders are limited
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.06.07 17:46:23 IST
4 MA-1057-2021
for these cases only.
On the other hand the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.
Hajarilal Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. 2006 (4)
MPHT 237 turning down the prayer of appellant that appellant may be
allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the
appeal on compensation which may be determined by the court and held -
Court fees is payable on valuation of appeal. The amount for which
adjudication is sought not on determined, on the initial stage where Court-fee
is required to be paid.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Skaria Vs. Govt. of State of
Kerala & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 811 held that non-payment of
Court fees cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or on the ground of
hardship or on the ground that person suing did not know the exact amount
due to him as that will open the floodgates for converting several types of
money claims into suits for accounts to avoid payment of court fees at the
time of institution.
From the above discussion it is clear that the appeal is not maintainable
without payment of Court fees on the claimed enhanced amount i.e.
Rs.6,00,000/-. If the claimants are unable to pay the Court fee on account of
indigency, they can always seek the leave to file an appeal as an indigent
person under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Hence I.A.No.3211/2021 is hereby rejected sans merit and appellants
are directed to pay requisite Court fees within fifteen days, failing which this
appeal shall stand rejected without reference to the Court.
On payment of requisite court fees by the appellants within fifteen days
matter be listed for admission in due course.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.06.07 17:46:23 IST
