Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Giraja Shankar Sharma vs National Insurance Company ... on 12 May, 2023
Author: Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
MISC. APPEAL No. 2927 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
1- SHRI GIRAJA SHANKAR SHARMA S/O
SATYANARAYAN SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, VILLAGE BHANDI P.O. KHUTAR
DISTRICT TAHSIL SINGRAULI M.P. CURRENT
ADDRESS H.N. 935 AMANPUR NARSINGH WARD
MADANMAHAL JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2- SMT.URMILA SHARMA W/O GIRJA SHANKAR
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BHANDI P.O. KHUTAR DISTRICT
TEHSIL SINGRAULI MP CURRENT ADDRESS H.N.
935 AMANPUR NARSINGH WARD MADANMAHAL
JABALPUR (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3- NITESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O GIRAJA
SHANKAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHANDI P.O. KHUTAR
DISTRICT TEHSIL SINGRAULI MP CURRENT
ADDRESS H.N. 935 AMANPUR NARSINGH WARD
MADANMAHAL JABALPUR (MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI V.P. SHAH - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
AND
1- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER ADDRESS
BRANCH OFFICE WAIDHAN SHIVGANGA
COMPLEX TALI POST WAIDHAN DISTRICT
SINGRAULI M.P. BRANCH OFFICE NO. 2
MARHOTAL KARAMCHAND CHOWK JABALPUR
M.P. (INSURANCE COMPANY OF VEHICLE NO. MP
66 MA 9692 (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
2
2- RAMASHANKAR SHAHWAL S/O JEETALAL
OCCUPATION: OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.MP 66
MA 9692 R/O PREETI MEDICAL STORE WARD NO.
40 WIADHAN DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3- SATYADEV SHAH S/O SHRI VIJAY KUMAR
SHAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. MP 66 MA 9692 R/O
VILLAGE CHITARWAI KALA POST KHUTAR
POLICE STATION WAIDHAN DISTRICT TEHSIL
SINGRAULI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
......................................................................................
Reserved on : 08/05/2023
Pronounced on : 12/05/2023
.....................................................................................
This Misc. Appeal having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Amar Nath
(Kesharwani) pronounced the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.10710 of 2022, an application for ignoring the
default of 2.5% Court fee as pointed out by the Registry.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the
provision of the Court Fee (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2012,
court fee ought to be paid 2.5% of the enhanced amount, awarded in the
Appeal and not on the amount which is claimed in appeal and Registry
of this Court has wrongly raised objection on the proportionate Court
fee and demanding 2.5% court fee on the claimed amount in appeal
which is against the spirit of law.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the enhanced
amount cannot be determined earlier the judgment, but only after the
judgment and only in cases where enhancement is made, then in that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
case only the court fee has to be paid and that too on the enhanced
amount and in case enhancement is not done, then no court fee is
required to be paid.
4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on the orders passed by coordinate Bench of this Court
in MA No.1911 of 2010 (Hemraj and another Vs. Pradeep &
another) decided on 06/11/2012 (Annexure A-2), MA No.3612 of
2010 (Galiya and others Vs. Darbar and others) decided on
15/12/2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 608 (MP) (Annexure A-3),
MA No.2056 of 2010 (Smt. Nilofar Anjum and another Vs. Mohd.
Ashif & another) decided on 14/12/2021 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD
1017 (MP) (Annexure A-4), MA No.3147 of 2010 (Badrilal Vs.
Harikishan and others) decided on 16/12/2011 reported in 2012 (2)
ACCD 1049 (MP) (Annexure A-5), MA No.808 of 2011 (Smt.
Leelabai and others Vs. Ramesh & others) decided on 14/12/2011
reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 1023 (MP) (Annexure A-6), MA No.11 of
2010 (Dilip Vs. Jakir Mohd. And others) decided 14.12.2011 reported
in 2012 (2) ACCD 1022 (MP) (Annexure A-7), MA No.2015 of 2011
(Rakesh Vs. Sunil & others) decided on 16/12/2011 reported in 2012
(2) ACCD 1018 (MP) (Annexure A-8), MA No.4020 and 4261 of
2011 (Smt. Savita and others Vs. Shree Kumar Dhurve & others)
decided on 20.12.2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 589 (MP)
(Annexure A-9), MA No.852 of 2015 (Preetam Lal Garg and others
Vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati & others) decided on 21.12.2016
(Annexure A-10), MA No.851 of 2015 (Arun Kumar Dubey Vs.
Vijay Kumar Gujrati & others) decided on 21.12.2016 (Annexure
A-11), MA No.88 of 2018 (Smt. Meera Sahu Vs. Deepchand) decided
on 08.03.2018, MA No.907 of 2020 (Smt. Aanny @ and others Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. And others) decided on 17.02.2020
and Basid vs. K.C. Sanu 2015 ACJ 1856 (High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam) (Annexure A-12).
5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the citations relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant. Citations as mentioned in the above para No.4
which were marked as Annexures A-2 to A-11 and orders passed in MA
No.88 of 2018 and MA No.907 of 2020, this Court did not lay down any
principles in above cases that appellants are required to pay court fees
only on that amount which was enhanced by the Court after
adjudication of the appeal, but those were just isolated events and no
such law has been laid down in those cases.
6. Division benches and co-ordinate benches of this Court in various
cases passed the orders where this question has been comprehensively
dealt with, of which, some are reproduced as below:-
(I) MA No.781 of 2015 Ram Ratan Singh & others vs.
Janakchand Rana & another vide order dated, 06.09.2017 passed the
following :-
"Heard on I.A.No.8831/2017, 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 applicants
have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award
dated 18/10/2014 passed by IInd Additional MACT, Katni
in Claim Case No.268/2013 for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the
applicants. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement
of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Office put the objection that
appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees
on that enhanced amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
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
appellant 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 by the court.
In this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on
this court's judgments passed in MA.No.1911/2010
(Hemraj Basore Vs. Pradeep Yadav & another) vide
order dated 06/11/2012, Galiya & others Vs. Darbar &
others, 2012(2) ACCD 608 (MP), Smt. Nilofar Anjum &
another Vs. Mohd. Aasif & another, 2012 (2) ACCD
1017 (MP), Badrilal Vs. Harikishan & others, 2012 (2)
ACCD 1049 (MP), Smt. Leelabai & others Vs. Ramesh
& others 2012 (2) ACCD 1023 (MP), Dilip Vs. Jakir
Mohammad & others, 2012 (2) ACCD 1022 (MP),
Rakesh Vs. Sunil & others, 2012 (2) ACCD 1018 (MP),
Savita Vs. Shri Kumar Dhruve, 2012 (2) ACCD 589
(MP), Preetam Lal Garg & others Vs. Vijay Kumar
Gujrati & others, passed in MA.No.852/2015 vide order
dated 21/12/2016, Arun Kumar Dubey Vs Vijay Kumar
Guyrati and others passed in MA.No.851/2015 vide
order dated 21/12/2016 and kerala high court judgement
passed in Basid Vs K.C. Sanu reported in 2015 ACJ 1856.
This court has gone through the record and
arguments advanced by the counsel of the appellants. This
appeal has been filled 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:-
"(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." 2.5 percent of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
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.
Apex court in the case of A. Nawab John & Ors vs
V. N. Subramaniyam reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 para
23 of his judgement observed as 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) "where 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
MA.No.1911/2010 (Hemraj Basore Vs. Pradeep Yadav
& another), Galiya & others Vs. Darbar & others,
Smt.Nilofar Anjum & another Vs. Mohd. Aasif &
another, Badrilal Vs. Harikishan & others, Smt.
Leelabai & others Vs. Ramesh & others, Dilip Vs. Jakir
Mohammad & others, Rakesh Vs. Sunil & others,
Savita Vs. Shri Kumar Dhruve, (supra) relied by the
learned counsel of the applicants do not much help to the
applicants. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
adjudication of the appeal by this court. On the contrary the
above cases were entertained by the registry of this court
without payment of requisite court fees. So in the cases, the
court had given directions at the time of judgement that the
claimant shall pay the court fees on the enhanced amount.
Although this court in the case of Preetam Lal
Garg & others Vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati & others,
MA.No.852/2015 and Arun Kumar Dubey Vs Vijay
Kumar Guyrati and others MA.No.851/2015 vide order
dated 21/12/2016 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 be paid after adjudication of the appeal by
the court. The orders are limited for these cases only.
Likewise the Kerala High Court judgement passed in
the case of Basid Vs K.C. Sanu (Supra) is also not on the
point of payment of court fees in the appeal.
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".
The 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.1,00,000/-.
If the claimants are unable to pay the Court fee on
account of indigency, they can always seek the leave to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
file an appeal as an indigent person under Order 44 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Hence I.A.No.8831/2017 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.
(II) In the case of Smt. Jalso Bai and others vs. Surendra Kumar &
others in MA.No.1057/2021 vide order dated 07.06.2021 has passed
the following :
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
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 by the Court. In
this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on this
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:-
(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 "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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John
& Ors vs. V. N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 in pera
23 of its judgement observed as 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) "where 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 be paid after adjudication of the
appeal by the court. The orders are limited for these cases
only.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
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."
(III) In the case of Dharam Singh Masram vs. Sanjay Maravi &
ors. in MA.No.1990/2020 vide order dated 07.01.2022 has held as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
"Registry has put up a note that Court fees of
Rs.5000/- on memo of appeal and Rs.20/- on vakalatnama
is not paid.
Attention of this Court is also invited to orders
passed in MA No.1057/2021 and MA No.781/2015. In MA
No.1057/2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 07.06.2021 has held that appeal is not maintainable
without payment of Court fees on claimed enhanced
amount.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant has relied in
the case of Sant Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Modern Co-
operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Others
reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kalabai Vs. Rashid
Khan reported in 2012 3 MPWN 71; and State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rambihari reported in 1993 1
MPWN 63.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
In case of Kalabai (Supra) an observation was
made that court fees is payable on enhanced amount and
after payment of court fees claimants shall be entitled to
get the enhanced amount.
Case relied upon by counsel for the appellant
Kalabai (Supra), there was no issue before the Court
whether miscellaneous appeal is maintainable without
payment of court fees or not. The judgments relied
upon by the counsel appearing for appellant in Sant Lal
(Supra) and Rambihari (Supra) are in respect of
binding precedent and said cases have not dealt with
the issue of maintainability of miscellaneous appeal
without payment of court fees.
Coordinate Bench of this Court in MA
No.781/2015 and in MA No.1057/2021 has dealt with the
issue extensively and has ordered appellant to pay
deficit court fees and without payment of court fees it
was held that miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable.
I am in agreement with the orders passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.09.2017,
07.06.2021 and 14.06.2021 passed in MA No.781/2015,
MA No.1057/2021 and MA No.1058/2021, respectively.
In view of same, it is ordered that appellant will
pay court fees within period of 30 days, failing which
the appeal shall stand dismissed without further
reference to this Court."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
(IV) In the case of Maiku Singh and others vs. Anup Singh and
others reported in 2022 (4) MPLJ 285 has held that the appeal is not
maintainable without payment of court fees on the claimed enhanced
amount. Paras 5 to 12 are reproduced as below :-
"5. From the wordings of the provisions of Article 11 of
Schedule II of Court fees Act" "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
appellant in his appeal memo and not on the amount which
will be determined by the Court after adjudication of the
claim of the appellant and the Court fees is payable at the
time of presentation of the appeal not after judgment.
"6. Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 bars the Court
from receiving a plaint/appeal if it does not bear the proper
Court fees. Although section 149, Civil Procedure Code
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 the Court for giving time to appellant
for paying Court fee.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.Nawab John
and ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, 2012 MPLJ Online
(S.C.) 82= (2012) 7 SCC 738 in para 23 of its judgment
observed as thus:-
"The section 149, Civil Procedure Code 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 7 M.A.
No.155/2019 fee within the period of
limitation."
8. Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code also
provides that the plaint shall be rejected (c) "where the
relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
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."
9. Although, this Court in the case of M.A. No.851/2015,
Arun Kumar Dubey vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati and Others
and M.A. No. 88/2018, Smt. Meera Sahu vs. Deepchand
gave the permission to the appellants of these cases that
they will be permitted to pay Court fees on the enhanced
amount after judgment in the appeal. But in these cases
coordinate bench of 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 be paid after adjudication of the appeal
by the Court. The orders are limited for these cases only.
10. On the other hand the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Dr. Hajarilal Agrawal vs. State of M.P. and
ors., 2005 (2) M.P.L.J. 65 = 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.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Skaria vs.
Govt. of State of Kerala and anr., reported in 2006(2)
M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 70 = AIR 2006 SC 811 held that non-
payment of Court fees cannot be claimed as a matter of
convenience or on the ground of hardshipor on the ground
that person 8 M.A. No.155/2019 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.
12. 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.5,00,000/-, as also held
by this Court in the case of Ramratan Singh vs. Janakchand
Rana, 2017 MPLJ Online 135 = M.A.No. 781/2015 vide
order dated 6-9-2017 and coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Rashmi Mongare and others vs. Sunil
Chaudhari and others, 2021 MPLJ Online 62 =M.A. No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
1058/2021 vide order dated 14.06.2021. 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."
(V) In the case of Nitin Jain and another vs. State of M.P. and
others WP No.2818/2015 (PIL) order passed on 08.12.2015. Division
Bench of this Court has held in para Nos.10 and 11 that court fees on
the enhanced amount in appeal shall be 2.5% after the cutoff date, if
appeal is presented after 09.01.2013. Para Nos.10 and 11 are reproduced
as below:-
10. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation in
holding that since the matter stands concluded by the
Full Bench decision and the amending Act of 2012;
therefore, the court fees on the enhanced amount in
appeal shall be 2.5% after the cutoff date i.e. 02.04.2008
and not 10%, if appeal is presented after 09.01.2013.
11. In view of the above, Registry directed to
appropriately calculate court fees on the appeal at the
time of the presentation to the High Court in
accordance with Schedule II, Article 11(a)(i) of the
Court Fees Act (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2012 w.e.f.
9.1.2013.
7. Thus, some of the coordinate benches of this court have granted
exemption from payment of court fee till final disposal of the case but
has assigned no reasons to do so, whereas the Co-ordinate Benches of
this Court in the case of Maiku Singh and Others (supra) and Smt.
Rashmi Mongare (supra) have given a specific reasons and discussed
the issue in length as to why the Court Fee is payable at the time of
presentation of the appeal and not after the appeal is decided and just
compensation is adjudicated.
8. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Jain (supra) in
para No.11 directed that the Registry to calculate appropriate court fees
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
on the appeal at the time of presentation to the High Court in
accordance with Schedule II, Article 11 (a)(i) of the "Court Fees Act
(M.P. Amendment Act, 2012)".
9. In the case of Manoj Kumar and other Vs. HDFC Ergo
General Insurance Co. Ltd. in MA.No.155/2019 vide order dated
17.04.2023 this Court has held that the court fee is payable at the time
of the presentation of the appeal.
10. Above mentioned orders as mentioned in para-6 have been passed
after due consideration of each case. Thus, by placing reliance on the
above mentioned orders of this Court, in my considered opinion,
arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the court fees is not
payable at the time of filing/presentation of the appeal is not acceptable.
11. Hence I.A. No.10710 of 2022 is rejected and appellants are
directed to pay requisite court fee as pointed out by Registry within 30
days of this order, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed
without further reference to the Court. After payment of the requisite
court fee by the appellants, matter be listed for admission in due course.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
SM/DPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 12-May-23
4:44:40 PM
