Remanded

Shyamapada Bid v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Jan 2023CO/2360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order requiring the petitioner to deposit deficit court fees for drawing up an ex parte decree. The court held that the petitioner was exempted from court fees under State Legal Services Authority provisions at the suit stage. It directed the lower court to decide the fee issue afresh upon production of relevant exemption documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside remanded with direction to produce exemption documents for fresh decision on fee deposit.

Shyamapada Bid Vs Union of India and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

02.01.2023 Item No.9 Ct. No.7 CHC (disposed of)

¶2

C.O. 2360 of 2022

¶3

Sri Shyamapada BidC & C R Vs. The Union of India & ors.

¶4

Mr. Arup Krishna Das, Mr. Wasim Raj Sarder

¶5

…for the petitioner

¶6

Orders impugned are relatable to rejection of an application for waiving deficit court fees, for drawing up the decree in a Money Suit No.08 of 2019 of learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisioin), 2^nd Court, at Asansol.

¶7

Admittedly, there has been an ex parte decree granted in the referred Money Suit.

¶8

Adverting to paragraph-12 of the copy of the plaint, learned advocate submits that the required court fees need not be deposited by the petitioner, as the suit was filed taking permission of the concerned District Legal Services Authority.

¶9

The attention of the Court is drawn to order No.2, dated 13^th June, 2017, passed by the court below

¶10

¶11

making exemption from filing court fees, as to the institution of the suit.

¶12

There is sufficient reflection in the body of the judgement dated 13^th October, 2020, passed by the court below granting ex parte decree to the suit, Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits.

¶13

While disputing with the impugned orders, Mr. Das submits that when the petitioner falls within the exempted category of persons requiring no deposit of court fees for redressing grievance from a court of law, any subsequent order requiring the petitioner to deposit court fees is contrary to the provisions of the law.

¶14

It is thus contended by the petitioner that the report of Sherestadar revealing deficit court fees, may not be levied for drawing up the decree, and the court below being oblivious of the previous orders, and the disclosure made in paragraph-12 of the plaint has recorded the impugned order, requiring the petitioner to deposit court fees of Rs.50,000/- for drawing up the decree.

¶15

There is a specific disclosure mentioned in paragraph-12 of the plaint as to the permission granted by the concerned District Legal Services Authority exempting the petitioner from paying

¶16

¶17

required court fees. There is not only reflection in the order dated 13^th June, 2017, but also sufficient disclosure was there regarding deficit court fees in order dated 3^rd October, 2020, granting ex parte decree. There is some provisions contained in the State Legal Services Authority Act and its Rules framed thereunder making eligible category of persons to seek for exemption from paying court fees for redressal of grievance from a court of law. No further elaboration is felt necessary.

¶18

The revisional application is disposed of upon setting aside the impugned order, with a direction upon the petitioner to produce all necessary papers before the court below, particularly the permission granted by the concerned State Legal Services Authority exempting the petitioner from paying the court fees together with the relevant provisions contained in the State Legal Services Authority Act and Rules contained therein, within three weeks from the date of communication of this order to the court below, and upon production of all such documents, as mentioned hereinabove, the issue pertaining to deposit of deficit court fees, may be decided afresh in accordance with the law within fortnight thereafter.

¶19

Petitioner is directed to make communication of this order to the learned court below as well as to the

¶20

¶21

opposite parties and their learned advocate in the court below.

¶22

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶23

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)

Shyamapada Bid v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamapada Bid v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neha Mishra Vs Sanjeev Mishra

Siddhartha Sankar Bandhyopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Barnali Purkait (Mondal) Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Debtosh Kumar Mondal Vs Shelly @ Jolly Mondal (Biswas)

Re : Rai Surajmal Bahadur Charitable Trust -and- Vs Abhishek Agrawalla -vs- Rajendra Kumar Banka & Anr.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Union of India