Civil - Court Fees - Section 29 of Court Fees Act 1959 - Whether order of Trial Court that it had jurisdiction to try proceedings, but came to conclusion that as applicants had not paid sufficient Court Fee stamp, application for probate was dismissed was liable to be set aside - Held, court fees Act shall have to be strictly construed - Legislation in its wisdom had made payable court fees only on probate or letter of administration and not on application by 11 fa 850.09 virtue of Section 29 and Clause 10 of Schedule I - Interpreting it in any other manner would be negating said provision itself - Language of Section 29 and Clause 10 of Scheduled I of Act of were unambiguous and did not admit of any Ors. Interpretation - Court Fees act will had to be strictly construed - Unless and until Court comes to conclusion that order entitling Petitioner to grant of probate was to be made till such time Petitioner was not required to pay Court fees - Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Pishorilal Sethi v. Arvind K. Jauhar cited had rightly considered provisions of Court Fees Act as applicable to State - Judgment of Single Judge of this Court in case of Jyoti Nikul Jariwala v. State of Maharashtra was on different premises, wherein constitutional validity of Clause 10 which did not prescribe for upper limit of court fees payable was challenged - It did not involve controversy involved in present matter - Hence, petition disposed off order of trial court set aside matter remanded back to be hear fresh
Citation : 2011 (5)MhLj 245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
First Appeal No. 850 of 2009
Decided On: 07.04.2011
Shashikant S/o Gangadhar Thorat and Anil S/o Gangadhar Thorat
Vs.
Punja S/o Gangadhar Thorat and Ors.
Vs.
Punja S/o Gangadhar Thorat and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.V. Gangapurwala, J.
S.V. Gangapurwala, J.
