Court Fees Act, 1870: Valuation and Computation of Court Fees, Lecture notes of Federal Courts

Download Court Fees Act, 1870: Valuation and Computation of Court Fees and more Lecture notes Federal Courts in PDF only on Docsity! Subject: Professional Ethics B.A.LL.B-IXth Sem Subject Teacher: Dr. Md. Junaid Study Material of Unit-V Topic: Court Fees Act 1870 Court Fee Definition Court fee may be defined as fee paid purportedly to cover administrative costs, at the start of each new court filing. A fee (such as a “filing fee“) which may be imposed upon a litigant in order begin a lawsuit or start a legal dispute resolution case. The fee may represent covering administrative costs. In India this can refer to stamps that may be attached to court documents which instruct the payment of fees. It may also refer to collections matters. A fee that is imposed on a litigant to contest a case in the court of law. This fees is levied by the government on the people seeking judicial remedies through a legislation. History of the Court Fees The Courts are institutions where the aggrieved go to seek justice. With the establishment of Courts in India, a system evolved for the payment of fees for the adjudication of cases. The rates of stamp fees leviable in courts and offices established beyond the local jurisdiction of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay and in proceedings on the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts were governed by the Act XXVI of 1867. However, within a span of about two years, it was considered necessary to make a general reduction in the rates on the institution of civil suits and to rely on the principle of maximum fee which was obtained under the previous law. Also, in order to rectify the repressive effect and to avoid future confusion between stamp-revenue proper and the revenue derived, a comprehensive bill known as the Court Fees Bill was introduced in the Legislature. Now it is known as the Court Fees Act, 1870. Difference between Court fee and tax The distinction between a tax and a court fee lies primarily in the fact that a tax is levied as a part of a common burden, while a court fee is a payment for special benefit or privilege in respect of adjudication of disputes. Fees confer a special capacity, although the special advantage, as for example in the case of registration fees for documents or marriage licences, is secondary to the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. Public interest seems to be at the basis of all impositions, but in a court fee it is the special benefit which the individual receives. As Seligman says, it is the special benefit accruing to the individual which is the reason for payment in the case of fees; in the case of a tax, the particular advantage if it exists at all is an incidental result of State action. Distinction between the concepts of court fees and tax is functionally premised on the legal principle of quid pro quo. A tax is a non-quid pro quo payment by the people to the government. It is a non-quid pro quo transfer of private income to public coffers. It becomes so because the government even after levying the tax is not obliged to spend it in a certain way or provide a specific service in return of the tax. Therefore, tax is devoid of quid pro quo, wherein any benefit accrued to individuals is incidental and not primary. Court fees, however, are charged for a special service provided to individuals ideally by courts. This highlights the quid pro quo component in the concept of court fees. A court fee is either regulatory in nature. Objective of Court Fees The Court-fees Act, as its name signifies, is an Act primarily passed for the purpose of prescribing the fees which are to be paid in respect of documents to be used in courts. The Act has no preamble whereby its purpose can be ascertained, but there can be no manner of doubt that one of its main purposes is to levy fees for services to be rendered by the courts and public offices. The Act is a fiscal enactment having for its primary object the protection of revenue and not to coerce the subject. The Act not only prescribes the fees but also provides how these fees are to be ascertained or determined, and the conditions under which the documents included in the First and Second Schedules to the Act may be received, filed, registered or used, as the case may be, There are two kinds of court fees under the Court Fees Act ▪ Ad Valorem Court fees (Schedule 1) – it means according to the valuation. Ad valorem duties are always estimated at a certain per cent, on the valuation of the property as opposed to fixed or specific duties. ▪ Fixed or specific court fees (Schedule 2). Computation of Court Fees-Section7 Section 7 of the Act contemplates three types of valuation of the subject-matter of a suit. ▪ By valuing it according to its market value. ▪ By ascribing to the subject-matter an artificial value based simply on the certain fixed rule of calculation. ▪ By requiring the plaintiff himself to value the relief he seeks. This section only applies where the ad valorem fee is payable. Here is the detailed breakdown of the rule of computation of court fees in these kinds of suits – ▪ Suits for money – According to the amount claimed. ▪ Suits of maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically – Ten times the amount claimed to be payable in a year. ▪ Suits for movable property where the subject matter has a market value – According to the market value at the date of presenting the plaint. ▪ Suits for the possession of land, buildings or gardens – According to market value or (net profit x 15 times), whichever is higher. ▪ Suits for Pre-emption – If instituted under Muslim Personal Law, then according to the market value of the land. ▪ Suits for partition – According to the market value of the share in respect of which the suit has been instituted. ▪ Suits for the interest of an assignee of land revenue – Fifteen times of net profit. ▪ Suits to set aside an attachment of land – According to the amount for which the land was attached. ▪ Suits to redeem mortgaged property and suit for foreclosing – According to the principal money ▪ Suits for injunction or for a right to some benefit to arising out of the land – In such suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. This section has to be read along with the Schedules which are supplementary and not alternative to this section and other sections of the Act. The section states the various processes by which the values in different suits are to be ascertained and Schedule I applies the proper court-fee to these values payable either on plaint or memorandum of appeal. Schedules I and II endeavour to give a comprehensive classification of the various kinds of suits with reference to these heads of classification. The Schedules also provide that the proper fee payable on some documents shall vary according to the courts in which they are filed and that in regard to others there shall be no such variance. Again, in Schedule II, it is declared that plaints and appeals in the suits therein specified shall bear the fixed fees prescribed. In Schedule I are specified various suits in which plaints and memorandum of appeals shall bear an ad valorem fee. In short, the section purports to deal with the method of computation of court-fees payable in various classes of suits mentioned in its several clauses. General Rules - It has already been noticed while considering Sections 4 and 6 that a plaint is a document which has got to be stamped with the court- fee either under Schedule I or Schedule II of the Act. These two Schedules categorise suits into different groups in respect of which either an ad valorem fee as provided by Schedule I or a fixed fee as provided by Schedule II is payable. So the first thing to be done in this connection is to find out under which of the two Schedules the suit falls. The first rule to be observed in determining the court-fee payable in any suit is to ascertain the nature of the suit with reference to the different provisions contained in different clauses to this section read with Schedule I or Schedule II. The second rule with regard to the determination of the category of a suit for computation of court-fee is that the allegations and prayers of the plaint are to be looked into and in this regard such allegations are to be assumed to be correct. The third rule to be observed is that the court has to look beyond the mere form and verbiage of the plaint and to arrive at what is the real substance of the claim. Mode of Computation of Court-fees.- Section 7 of the Court-fees Act deals with the mode of computation of the court-fees payable in the various classes of suits and appeals mentioned in it. It contemplates three modes of valuation of the subject-matter of a suit, which are as follows :- 1) Valuation according to its actual or market value, in other words, the market value of the subject-matter determines the amount of court- fee payable. 2) By ascribing to the subject-matter an artificial value based simply on certain fixed rules of calculation. 3) Notional valuation, or valuation at the option of the plaintiff, that is to say, by requiring the plaintiff himself to value the relief he seeks. Section 7 has to be read along with the Schedules. Schedules I and II endeavour to give a comprehensive classification of the various kinds of suits with reference to these heads of classification. These Schedules also provides that the proper fees payable on some documents shall vary according to the courts in which they are filed and that in regard to others there shall be no such variance. Again, in Schedule II, it is mentioned that plaints and appeals in the suits therein specified shall bear the fixed fees prescribed, while in Schedule I are specified various suits in which the plaints and appeals shall bear an ad valorem fee. Section 7 is a handle for the application of the Schedules of the Act. Computation of Court-fee (a) In suit for money : Section 7(i) of Act says :- In suit for money (including suits for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities or of other sums payable periodically) - according to amount claimed. The scope of this clause extends to all suits for money irrespective of whether the amount recoverable is a fixed sum or by instalments or it recoverable periodically or is secured upon any joint property is governed for the purposes of court-fee, by Article 17(vi) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act 1870. This sub-clause does not differentiate between a plaintiff who is in actual possession and one who is merely in constructive possession of the property which is to be partitioned. Partition is the enforcement of the right to share in the joint family estate. This sub- clause is specifically meant to govern suits for the enforcement of the right to share in joint Hindu family estates. Plaintiffs must decide at the outset, the nature of their case and must pay court-fee accordingly. The court-fee cannot be made conditional on the decision in the suit itself. Computation of court-fees in suits for declaratory decree with consequential relief : Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act prescribes the amount of fees payable in a suit to obtain a decree or order where consequential relief is prayed. Under this sub-clause the amount of court-fees shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In such suit the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. This sub-clause is applicable to a suit in which having regard to the substance of the plaint it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to obtain a declaratory decree in order to perfect his right to the consequential relief that he claims, for instance, where the plaintiff seeks relief to which he is not entitled unless and until some decree of document of alienation of property is avoided. A suit in which a declaration in that behalf is claimed is within Section 7(iv)(c). The Court-fees Act, 1870 contemplates suits to obtain declaratory decrees simpliciter and suits to obtain declaratory decrees with consequential reliefs as two distinct categories. While the first category falls under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II, the second one falls under this sub-clause of the clause. Under the former, a fixed court-fee is payable, while in the latter, an ad valorem court-fee on the value of the relief sought is payable. In Laxman Rao v. Dagubai, AIR 1952 MB 147, it was observed - The court cannot compel a plaintiff to add a prayer for consequential relief and demand ad valorem court-fee on such relief. It can only refuse to grant the declaration asked for if in its opinion consequential relief is necessary. Computation of Court-fee in suit to obtain injunction.- Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-fees Act provides that the amount of fee payable in a suit to obtain an injunction shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In such a suit the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. An injunction is a specific order of the court forbidding the commission of a wrong threatened, or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun or in some cases (when it is called a mandatory injunction) commanding active restitution of the former state of things. Thus injunctions may be preventive or mandatory. Preventive injunction may be temporary or perpetual. This clause (iv) (d) applies to those suits in which a perpetual injunction is claimed. It is only in such a case that a decree is necessary and when this clause says of a suit to obtain in an injunction, it speaks of a suit to obtain a decree for injunction. Therefore, a suit in which an application is made under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of temporary injunction, does not fall under this clause merely because such an application is made. But where the suit itself is for an injunction, this clause will come into operation whether the injunction sought for is preventive or mandatory. In suits under this clause, the injunction must be a substantive relief. It may be the sole relief prayed for in the suit or may be coupled with some other relief. In either case, this clause will apply to the prayer for injunction. The relief of injunction may be asked for as substantive relief in addition to a relief of declaration. Even in such a case this clause will apply and not clause (c). Illustrations - (1) A suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from erecting permanent structures on the land in suit and for mandatory injunction for the removal of the construction already made alleging that the defendant's interest in the land was not sufficient to entitle him to erect such structures, comes under this clause. (2) A suit for possession of money bonds and for an injunction restraining defendants from drawing money from the bank, falls under this clause. (3) A suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from cutting timber from a jungle belonging to the plaintiff, falls under this clause. (4) A suit to restrain the defendant from opening certain windows in his wall and from preventing or obstructing the plaintiff from building a second storey to his own house, falls under this clause. Computation of fees payable in suit for account - Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act provides as follows : "The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows : (iv) In suits - (f) for accounts - according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. In such suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought." This sub- clause is intended to provide for all kinds of suits for accounts. A suit is one for accounts and not for money, if the plaint shows that the defendant is an accounting party and that the plaintiff claims on the footing that an account has to be taken to ascertain the sum due to him. But a suit does not necessarily become a suit for accounts because the plaint asks for an account. Suits for partnership accounts and administration suits are also within its purview. Order 7, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure also requires that the plaintiff should approximately state the amount he claims, and clause 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act also enjoins the plaintiff to state the amount at which he values the relief sought. This amount determines the court-fee as well as the forum, notwithstanding that the plaintiff has through mistake or inadvertance stated the value for the purposes of jurisdiction at a different figure. Valuation of suits for accounts. A plaintiff cannot put a value at his choice by simply calling his suit a suit for accounts. He must show that the defendant is an accounting party, i.e., an agent, a trustee, a partner, a mortgagee, a receiver or a bailee in suits for accounts, it is open to the plaintiff to value his suit for the purposes of court-fee at any figures he chooses. The mention of a certain sum in the suit would not change the nature of the suit. Thus a statement in the plaint that the defendant mismanaged and falsified accounts and that the plaintiff sustained loss thereby by a certain amount is still a suit for accounts. Computation of Court fee in suits for interest of an Assignee of Land Revenue : Section 7 Clause (vii) of Act says in suits for the interest of an assignee of land revenue the court-fee shall be computed on fifteen times his net profits as such for the next year before date of presenting plaint. Computation of court-fee in suits to set aside attachment. - It is provided in section 7(viii) of the Court-fees Act that the amount of court-fee in the suits to set aside an attachment of land or of an interest in land or revenue shall be calculated according to the amount for which the land or interest was attached : provided that where such amount exceeds the value of the land or interest, the amount of fee shall be calculated as if the suits were for the possession of such land or interest. In Asit Baran Choudhary v. Prafulla Chandra Bose AIR 1984 Cal. 366, it was observed :- This clause is intended to provide for suit to set aside (i) an attachment of land, or (ii) attachment of an interest in land, or (iii) attachment of an interest in revenue. But a person suing to set aside an attachment of land or an interest therein, shall in no case be called upon to pay a higher fee than he would have to pay, if he were suing for the possession of the land or interest. A person whose land is attached cannot be compelled to resort to an application under Order 21, Rule 58, of the Civil Procedure Code, for he is at liberty, if he so desires, to commence his litigation by a regular suit independently of the summary provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code, and this clause would apply to such a suit. Similarly, this clause would be equally applicable to cases, where the summary provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked, as for instance, in attachments by revenue officers for the recovery of rent or land revenue. So an attachment of land or any interest therein under the Civil Procedure Code, when it is not followed by a summary decision under Order 21, Rule 58 or attachment by Revenue Officers or Courts without any summary decision, are attachments contemplated by this clause, and suits to set aside such attachments are governed by Section 7(VII) of the Court-fees Act. But this clause does not apply to suits under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code. Such a suit is one to alter or set aside a summary decision or order of Civil Court not established by Letters Patent within the meaning of Article 17(i) of the second Schedule, and is consequently governed by that article. Redemption and Foreclosure Section 7(ix) of Court-fee Act provides - "In suits against a mortgages for recovery of property mortgaged to foreclose; and in suits by a mortgage to foreclose the mortgage, or where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute - according to principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage." The clause provides for three classes of suits, viz, (i) suit against a mortgagee for recovery of the property mortgaged, (ii) suit by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, and (iii) suit, where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute. In all these three cases the valuation of the suits has to be made according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage deed. The application of the clause is not confined to any particular kind of mortgage. A suit for redemption of a simple mortgage is within the purview of this clause. The first part of the clause applies not only to suits for redemption but to all suits against the mortgagee for the recovery of mortgaged property. Even a suit for redemption, where one of the questions at issue is whether the mortgage money is paid off, and if not what is the amount remaining due, is within the ambit of the clause. Similarly, where the main relief claimed in the suit is one for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, but the plaintiff prays that the mortgagee should account for surplus deficiencies caused by him during the course of his management of the mortgaged property, the suit is substantially one for redemption and the court-fee is leviable under this clause, and no separate fee is required in respect of the prayer for account regarding surplus deficiencies. But where a distinct relief in addition to that of redemption is claimed, separate court- fee in respect of it has to be paid. A suit for redemption of a mortgage and mesne profit is, however, not a suit including two or more `distinct subjects' and falls within this clause. The following are some instances where suits have been held not to fall under this clause : (i) A suit to enforce a mortgage by a decree for sale. (ii) A suit by the purchaser of the equity of redemption to get rid of a decree obtained by the collusion of the mortgagor and the mortgagee for a larger amount than what is due. (iii) A suit for redemption of a pledge. (iv) A suit where a mortgagee seeks to recover possession of the mortgaged land, or to recover money on the basis of a mortgage. Computation of court-fees in suits for specific performance - As provided in clause (x) of section 7 of the Court-fees Act the amount of court-fee shall be computed in suits for specific performance - (a) of a contract of sale - according to the amount of consideration; (b) of a contract of a mortgage - according to the amount agreed to be secured; (c) of a contract of lease - according to the aggregate amount of the fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term; (d) of an award - according to the amount or value of the property in dispute. So this clause contemplates four classes of cases which are as follows :- (1) In a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, the court-fee is regulated by the amount of consideration money. [Section 7(x)(a)]. (2) In a suit for specific performance of a contract of mortgage, the court-fee is regulated by the amount agreed to be secured. [Section 7(x)(b)]. (3) In a suit for specific performance of a contract of lease, the court-fee is regulated by the aggregate amount of fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term. [Section 7(x)(c)]. (4) In a suit for specific performance of an award, the court-fee is regulate by the amount or value of the property in dispute. [Section 7(x)(d)]. The valuation in case of contracts of sale and mortgage will be according to the consideration of the deed of sale or mortgage, as the case may be, in case of lease, such value will be the aggregate of the premium and first year's rent, and in the case of an award, the valuation will be the value or amount of the property in dispute. Town Improvement Act or any other similar statute - Add in U.P.] shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. Section 8 provides for fee on memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984. The amount of such fee has to be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. This is not a charging section in itself and only provides a rule for the computation of the court- fee payable under the Act in appeal from cases mentioned therein on the assumption that an ad valorem court-fee is chargeable, and lays down the principle on which the court-fee is to be calculated. It is true that Schedule II, Article 17(iv) prescribes generally the fee payable in respect of a suit to set aside an award but this section excludes the application of that provision of law to awards in land acquisition cases, on the principle that the special provision overrides the general provision. In Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh, AIR 1995 SC 1828, it was observed - Ad valorem court-fee, and not a court-fee of Rs. 4 under Article 11, Schedule II, is leviable on a memorandum of appeal from an order accepting the award given by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Similarly, an appeal against an award under Section 11 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (11 of 1953) would be governed by Schedule I, Article 1 and would be chargeable with ad valorem court-fee. When the legality was challenged by filing appeal under Section 54, the difference of amount for which appeal was filed, ad valorem court-fees under Section 8 was required to be paid. Valuation of Court Fees-Section 12 Section 12 in the Court-fees Act, 1870 12. Decision of questions as to valuation.— (i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this Chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal, shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. (ii) But whenever any such suit comes before a Court of appeal, reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided, to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided, and the provisions of section 10, paragraph (ii), shall apply. The section is intended to protect and safeguard the interest of revenue as is manifest from the second clause of this section which shows how a court of appeal may review the decision of the lower court or when there is a loss of the public revenue. The scheme of the section is to see that the revenue is not defrauded, that the proper fee payable to Government as the price of the trial of the suit has been paid. In Daya Chand v. Hem Chand, it was observed :- A suit has to be valued for purposes of jurisdiction not according to the special rules of the Court- fees Act but according to the market value of the subject-matter of a suit. Valuation of suits for purposes of jurisdiction is perfectly distinct from valuation for the fiscal purposes of determining the court-fees, the one depending on the value of the subject-matter and the other on a certain value fixed by statutory rules. The rules laid down under the Court-fees Act cannot be taken necessarily as a guide for determination of jurisdictional value of a suit or appeal. The two Acts are not in pari Materia, and for that reason it is not permissible to treat them as forming a code and read together, the one being an Act fixing the value for purposes of jurisdiction and the other being a fiscal enactment prescribing rules to determine the value of a suit for purposes of court-fees. n Gopalkrishan Pillai v. Minakshi Ayal, SC observed that once the subject-matter of suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court-fee then such valuation continues to be proper. Valuation for the purpose of subsequent appeals also. Such valuation cannot fluctuate on account of relief of future mesne profits being allowed or disallowed. Cost of Process-Section 20-21 Section 20-Power of High Court to make rules.- The High Court may makes rules to provide for or regulate all or any of the following matters, viz : (a) the fees payable for serving and executing processes issued by such Court in its appellate jurisdiction, and by the Civil and Criminal Courts established within the local limits of such jurisdiction; (b) the remuneration of persons employed by the Courts mentioned in clause (a) in the service or execution of processes; (c) the fixing by District and Sessions Judges and District Magistrates of the number of process- servers necessary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued from their respective Courts and Courts subordinate thereto; and (d) the display in each Court of a table in the English and Vernacular languages showing the fees payable for the service and execution of process. All such rules shall be subject to the confirmation of the State Government and on such confirmation, shall be published in the official Gazette, and shall thereon have effect as if enacted in this Act. Section 21-Power of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to make rules.- (1) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make rules consistent with this Act, to provide for or regulate all or any of the following matters, viz: (a) the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and by the Revenue Courts established within the local limits of its jurisdiction; (b) the remuneration of the persons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of such processes; (c) the fixing by Collectors of the number of persons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of such processes; (d) the guidance of the Collectors, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by sub-section (iii) of Section 19-H; (e) the supply of stamps to be used under this Act; (5) In the case of court-fee due on a document exceeding fifty rupees, it may, in like circumstances, be paid in cash into the treasury (including a sub-treasury), and on such payment the officer-in-charge of the treasury shall certify by endorsement on the document, the amount of court-fee so paid in cash, and such endorsement shall, have same effect as if the court-fee has been duly paid in accordance with this Act.] Section -26Stamps to be impressed' or adhesive.- The stamps used to denote any Ices chargeable under this Act shall be impressed or adhesive, or partly impressed and partly adhesive, as the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette from time lo time direct. Section 27-Rules for supply, number, renewal and keeping accounts of stamps. - The Appropriate Government may, from time to time, make rules for regulating- (a) The supply of stamps to be used under this Act; (b) The number of stamps to be used for denoting any fee chargeable under this Act; (c) The renewal of damaged or spoiled stamps; and (d) The keeping accounts of all stamps used under this Act: Provided that, in the case of stamps used under section 3 in a High Court, such rules shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of such Court. All such rules shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereupon have the force of law. Section 28-Stamping documents inadvertently received.- No document which ought to bear a slump under this Act shall be of any validity, unless and until it is properly stamped. But, if any such document is through mistake or inadvertence received, filed or used in any Court or office without being properly stamped the presiding Judge or the head of the office, as the case may be, or in the case of a High Court, any Judge of such Court, may, if he thinks fit, order that such document be stamped as he may direct, and, on such document being stamped accordingly, the same and every proceeding relative thereto shall be as valid as if it had been properly stamped in the first instance. Section 28 of Court-fees Act provides :- No document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act shall be of any validity, unless and until it is properly stamped. But, if any such document is through mistake or inadvertance received, filed or used in any Court or office without being properly stamped, the presiding Judge or the head of the office, as the case may be, or, in the case of a High Court, any Judge of such Court, may, if he thinks fit, order that such document be stamped as he may direct; and, on such document being stamped accordingly, the same and every proceeding relative thereto shall be as valid as if it had been properly stamped in the first instance. The first part of this section provides that no document which is required to be stamped shall be used, unless it is properly stamped, and in a way supplements Sections 4 and 6 of this Act. The second paragraph of the section is intended to empower the Court, or the Judge when such an improperly stamped document has through mistake or inadvertence, been received, filed or used in the Court, make an order that such document may be properly stamped in the first instance. The section is not in conflict with Sections 9, 10 and 11 of this Act or with Section 54 (now Order 7, rule 11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision of Order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C. read with this section clearly imply that opportunity has to be given to the party concerned to pay the proper stamp, and it is only on his failure to do so that the Court is entitled to decline to look at the document. But if after the mistake in the amount of court-fee paid is pointed out to him, he does not avail of the indulgence and fails to rectify the mistake, he is not entitled to any extension of time. The section corresponds, more or less, to Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court-fee has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force, and effect as it such fee had been paid in the first instance. The powers conferred on courts under this section are wider than those in Section 28, as the words `at any stage' will indicate. Moreover, it is to be remembered that Section 149, Civil Procedure Code applies to civil courts only and not to criminal courts. This section applies only where an insufficiently stamped document has been received through mistake or inadvertence. But where there is no question of such mistake or inadvertence, it has no application. So where, owing to the existence of plague, the plaintiff was unable either to procure a court-fee stamp or to present the plaint in person, as he was restrained from going beyond certain limits under executive orders, and he sent the plaint unstamped and put in the requisite court-fee stamps on the removal of restrictions, but after the expiry of the period of limitation, it was held that Section 28 was not applicable to the circumstances of the case. Again, Section 28 does not apply to probate duty the reason being that it would be highly impracticable to make the validity of testamentary grants depend on the question as to the sufficiency of the stamp. Section -29 Amended document.- Where any such document is amended in order merely to correct a mistake and to make it conform to the original intention of the parties, it shall not be necessary to impose a fresh stamp. Section 30-Cancellation of stamp.- No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled. Such officer as the Court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document, forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figure-head so as to leave the amount designated on the stamps untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed. This section provides for cancellation of stamp filed in any proceeding in any court of office, and also the procedure to be followed in such cancellation. The court or head of office has been empowered to appoint from time to time such officer who will effect such cancellation. The part removed by punching must be burnt or otherwise destroyed. The cancellation of a stamp must be made by punching out the figurehead of the stamp but not the amount designated on the stamp. The endorsements on the stamps of the date of issue and the purchaser's name are not a cancellation of the stamp either in fact or in practice.