# In compromised cases

- **Citation:** C.L.No.64/VII-f-26
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1990-03-21
- **Case number:** C.L.No.64/VII-f-26
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-compromised-cases-163844
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

455

 In compromised cases
G.L.No.22/180-20(5) dated 2nd March, 1936

It is an erroneous idea that the deficiencies of court-fees should not be realized in
cases, which are compromised on the ground that since the parties have compromised,
they are not liable to further fees. The court should refuse to pass an order on the basis of
the compromise unless there is a properly stamped plaint.
 Report of Inspector not accepted
C.L.No.64/VII-f-26 dated 7th August, 1956,
C.L.No.41/VII-f-26 dated 23rd July, 1963,
C.L.No.87/VII-f-26 dated 31st May, 1971

In every case in which the report of the inspecting officer referred to in section
6(3) of the Court Fees Act is not accepted a copy of the findings together with a copy of
the plaint should invariably be sent to the Chief Inspector of Stamps so that he may be in
a position to take action under section 6-B (1) of the Act within the period prescribed for
the same.
C.L.No.41/VII-f-26 dated 23rd July, 1963 read with
C.L.No.87/VII-f-26 dated 31st May, 1971

The mandatory provisions of section 6(6) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, should be
strictly followed. A copy of the plaint or memorandum of appeal, as the case may be,
should invariably be sent along with a copy of the findings to the Chief Inspector of
Stamps in cases in which the report of the Inspecting officer is not accepted.
C.L.No.74 dated 1st August, 1958
District Judges should give their personal attention and see that the courts in their
judgeship invariably comply with these directions.
(iii)
Use of forged stamps
C.L.No. 36/VIIIb-151/Admn. (G) dated March 21, 1990
I am directed to refer to Court's Circular Letter No. 20/VIIIb-151, Admn. (G),
dated February 13, 1980, on the above subject and to say that it has come to the notice of
the Court that the provisions of Chapter VIII of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 in respect of
cancellation of court fee stamps and those contained in Rules 191, 384 and 385 of the
General Rules (Civil) 1957, are not faithfully performed by all concerned making a room
for use of those stamps again.
I am therefore, to request you kindly to direct all concerned to strictly follow the
instruction as contained in the Court's C.L. No. 20/VIIIb-151, dated February 13, 1980.
You are further requested to pay personal attention to see that the instructions
contained in regard to cancellation of Court Fees stamps are being complied with by all
concerned strictly.
Kindly, bring the contents of this C.L. to the notice of all concerned.
456
(iv)
(v)
For taking punitive action against the persons indulging in printing and
selling forged U.P. Advocates Welfare stamps.
C.L. No. 26/ VII f-249 Dated: 18th June, 2000

I am directed to enclose herewith a copy of Government letter No.137/SATNyaya-155/90 T.C. dated February 2000 on the above subject wherein, it has been stated
that in some districts stamps vendors are indulging in printing and selling forged
 ̳Advocates welfare Stamps' causing loss to the State revenue /benevolent fund meant for
Advocates.
 I am, therefore, to request you kindly to see that the forged ̳Advocates Welfare
Stamps' are not issued and in cases any such instance comes to your knowledge
appropriate action be taken in the matter.
C.L. No. 8/VIIIb-149 Dated: 13th February, 2001

Hon'ble court has observed with concern that court fee labels and stamps on
papers filed in courts remain unpunched and uncancelled despite issuance of various
circular letters inviting attention to the provision embodied in section 30 of the court Fee
Act and Rules 252 to 261 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. It is an obligation under the
Rules that no document shall be filed or acted upon in any Court or Office until the
Stamps affixed thereto have been punched/cancelled. The negligence in punching papers
and stamps may give opportunity to unscrupulous person to reuse them by otherwise
means causing loss of revenue to Government. Such negligence on the part of officials is
not only serious but gives opportunity for the misuse of those Stamps. In order to guard
against such malpractice in past, directions by means of Circular letters were issued for
strict compliance of the aforesaid provision of law.

You are, therefore, requested to ensure strict compliance of the provision of law
in the matter of punching and cancelling Court Fee labels. Failure to punch and cancel
stamps by the office also should be taken seriously and suitable action be taken against
the negligent officials.
(vi)
Non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 35, 38(2), 40 and 47A
of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
457
C.L. No. 37/VIIf-98 Dated: 19th October, 2001
The Government have intimated with concern that the provisions as contained in
Section 35, 38(8), 49 and 47A of Indian stamp Act, 1899 are not being complied with
strictly by the concerned Public Officers causing huge loss to the Government revenue.

I am, therefore, desired to send herewith a copy of Government letter no. Ka/Ni5-4306/11-2001-500(35)/98 dated July 12, 2001 along with its enclosures and to request
you to kindly ensure compliance of the provisions as contained in Section 35,38(8), 40
and 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, strictly and contents of the Government letter,
aforesaid, be brought to the notice of the concerned Judicial Officers of your Judgeship.
15.
HEARING OF CASES
(i)
de die in diem
G.L.No.878-67/9 dated 3rd April, 1917
The practice of hearing one or two witnesses a day in long cases instead of
hearing the case de die in diem till finished cannot be too strongly deprecated and notice
will be taken of Civil Judges and Munsifs who adhere to this antiquated and most
objectionable practice.

The following instructions should be borne in mind:
Where a case promises to be a long one, the cause list for a day or two should be cleared
and the time devoted entirely to the hearing of the case de die in diem. In the case of Civil
Judges there is no objection to a certain number of appeals being added so as to allow for
a break down, as appeals can be heard on an adjourned date without inconvenience of a
serious nature to the parties concerned.

Similarly, if on a date fixed in accordance with this letter a breakdown for any
reason occurs, a munsif can always inspect his office and take up miscellaneous work,
which does not require the fixing of an actual date.
C.L.No. 9/Admn.(B) dated 30th November, 1971

The habit of taking up more than one case at a time by the Magistrates - one by
the Magistrate himself and the other either by the reader or ahalmad or by both - is
highly improper and the Court view such lapses with great concern. Those found acting
in such improper manner shall be severely dealt with. The District Judges should make
occasional surprise visits and any irregularity brought to their notice should be promptly
dealt with.
(ii)
Verification of security bonds
G.L.No. 2/45-6(4) dated 11th May, 1928

Whenever a bond comes before a court for verification the presiding officer
should direct his attention to the important point of ascertaining whether the executants of
the bond (in the case of his being a Hindu) is a member of a joint Hindu family. If the
answer is in the affirmative, the next point to ascertain is whether the property
hypothecated is joint family property, in which case it would be inadequate by way of
security, as raising the question of legal necessity. Only after informing himself on these