ORDER N.D. Ojha, J.
1. The memorandum of revision was presented before the Stamp Reporter on 2nd of January, 1975. Court-fee stamps of Rs. 20 were affixed on a separate sheet of paper. On that sheet of paper it was mentioned that out of the court-fee stamps of Rs. 20, court-fee stamps of Rs. 10 were meant for being affixed on the memorandum of revision, of Rs. 5 on the Vakalatnama of Rs. 3 on two judgments and of Rs. 1-50 on the formal order. The Stamp Reporter has made a report to the following effect:--
"Copies of judgments and formal order are unstamped. They should bear a court-fee stamp worth Rs. 1/50 each. Similarly the Vakalatnama is also unstamped. It should bear a court-fee stamp worth Rs. 5."
2. The report of the Stamp Reporter appears to be on the basis that no court-fee stamp has been affixed on the vakalatnama and the copies of the judgments and formal order. He has not taken the affixation of court-fee stamps of Rs. 20 on a separate sheet of paper as sufficient compliance of payment of court-fee in respect of the vakalatnama, copies of judgments and formal order.
3. I have heard learoed counsel for the applicant and the learned Chief Standing Counsel in respect of the objection of the Stamp Reporter. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since he has paid Rs. 20 in court-fee stamps which are sufficient not only for the memorandum of revision but also for all the documents attached to it, there has been sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Court Fees Act. Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 is payable on the memorandum of revision and on the other documents it is payable in the manner stated in the report of the Stamp Reporter. The total amount of court-fee payable thus comes to Rs. 19.50. In its place the applicant has paid court-fee in the sum of Rs. 20. If the payment of court-fee on a separate sheet of paper is taken to be sufficient compliance, it cannot be said that any of the documents attached to the memorandum of revision is unstamped.
4. Section 3 of the Court Fees Act provides that the fees payable for the time being on documents referred to in the said section shall be collected in manner hereinafter appearing. Section 4 of the Court Fees Act provides that no document chargeable with fees shall be filed, exhibited, recorded, received or furnished in any case "unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document.". Section 4, therefore, requires only payment of a fee as mentioned in the schedules. This fee is to be paid in the manner specified in Sections 25 and 26 of the Court Fees Act. Section 25 lays down that all fees referred to in Section 3 or chargeable under this Act shall be collected by stamps, whereas Section 26 provides that the stamps used to denote any fees 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 to time direct. On a plain reading of Sections 3, 4, 25 and 26 it is apparent that what is required is that in respect of each document which is filed a fee has to be paid in the manner specified in the Act, namely by supplying impressed or adhesive court-fee stamps of the value of the fee payable in respect of that document.
5. In Jhamman Lal v. Parma Nand (AIR 1951 All 451) it was held that the Court Fees Act unlike the Stamp Act does not require that the document itself should be stamped. It only requires the payments of requisite court-fees in respect of the document.
6. In this view of the matter. I am of opinion that not only the memorandum of revision but also the vakalatnama, the two judgments and the formal order are duly stamped and they are not defective.
7. A copy of this order may be sent to the Stamp Reporter for his guidance.