Smti. Ralmanthangi (L) Vs Managing Director, Zoram Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

Gauhati High Court 3 Sep 1993 F.A. No. 145 of 1993 (1994) 1 GLR 43
Bench: Division Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

F.A. No. 145 of 1993

Hon'ble Bench

U.L. Bhatt, C.J; R.K. Manisana Singh, J

Advocates

P. Pathak and R. Barua, for the Appellant; B.K Goswami and B.M. Sarma, for the Respondent

Acts Referred

Court Fees Rules — Rule 16

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

U.L. Bhat, C.J.@mdashThis appeal is filed by the Defendant against the decree passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl in an

application (suit) filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of money from the Defendant. No court fee is paid on the memorandum of appeal. Registry

has raised an objection to the effect that court fee is payable.

2. There is no dispute that the Court Fees Act, 1870 applies to the State of Mizoram. That being so court fee payable on the memorandum of

appeal must be paid as indicated in Schedule - I of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Rule - 16 of the ""Rules for

regulation of the Procedure of Officers appointed to administer justice in the Lushai Hills"".

Part-V of the Rules deals with Civil Justice. The administration of civil justice in the Lushai Hills is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and his

Assistants. Rule 16 reads as under:

16. No stamp shall be required in any suits brought by house tax paying natives of the Lushai Hills district before the Deputy Commissioner or any

of this Assistants, and the parties, if house tax paying natives of the Lushai Hills district, shall be put to no cost further than their own actual

expenses. All parties other than house tax paying natives of the Lushai Hills district shall pay fees according to the scales fixed in the Court-fees

Act of 1870. No pleaders or mukhtars are to be allowed in any manner between villager and villager and in all cases where the chiefs are

personally concerned, they are, as far as possible, to be personally dealt with. Agents are only to be allowed when the personal presence of the

chiefs is inconvenient or impracticable. But chiefs should not be called for appeals of no great importance when a proper record of the chief''s

orders with reason is before the appellate court.

3. Rule 16 makes it clear that no court fee stamp is required in any suit before the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistants provided that the Plaintiff

is house tax paying natives of Mizoram. The rule covers only proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants. It does not purport

to govern appeals filed before the Deputy Commissioner against the Judgments or orders of his Assistants or appeals filed before the High Court

against the Judgments and orders of the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the law governing the Court Fees

payable on the memorandum of appeal is to be looked for not under the Rules but under the Court Fees Act, 1870, We have already indicated

that under the Act the Appellant is liable to pay court fee.

Appellant shall pay court fee within two months. Post the matter thereafter.

From The Blog
Supreme Court to Rule on Multi-State Societies in IBC Cases
Oct
25
2025

Story

Supreme Court to Rule on Multi-State Societies in IBC Cases
Read More
Supreme Court: Minors Can Void Property Sales by Guardians
Oct
25
2025

Story

Supreme Court: Minors Can Void Property Sales by Guardians
Read More