# It was brought to the notice of the Court in some cases that the reports of the

- **Citation:** C.L.No.119/X-e-10
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1990-03-21
- **Case number:** C.L.No.119/X-e-10
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/it-was-brought-to-the-notice-of-the-court-in-some-cases-that-the-reports-of-the-163839
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

454

It was brought to the notice of the Court in some cases that the reports of the
Inspectors of Stamps were misplaced or lost by the negligence of the staff and in others,
they were not brought to the notice of the presiding officers at all.
C.L.No.119/X-e-10 dated 17th December, 1953

Presiding officers should, therefore, take immediate action on the reports received
from the Inspectors of Offices or Stamps on question of deficiency in Stamp Duty and
report their decision in the matter to the District Judge within three months. They should
also check from time to time if any such reports are pending in the office, and take proper
action against the officials who fail to put up the same before them in time.
C.L.No.45 dated 12th August, 1964
District Judges should see that prompt attention is paid to the disposal of the
reports of the Inspector of Stamps and the action taken thereon intimated to the Chief
Inspector of Stamps. The report should be disposed of before deciding the case.

It is also added that a register in the form already prescribed under this Circular
Letter to indicate the progress of each case is maintained in each court and should be
checked by the presiding officers from time to time.
G.L.No.2/180-1 (2) dated 2nd March, 1931

When during the course of his inspection an Inspector of Stamps reports a
deficiency in court-fee, in any case, it should be considered by the presiding officer and if
the report is found to be correct, prompt and effective steps should be taken to recover the
deficiency from the party concerned. The court will find the inherent power of review or
the power under section 28 of the Court Fees Act as sufficient for the purpose in most
cases. The question whether the court can exercise these powers in a case after the
question of proper court fees has been decided and has become final between the parties
under section 12(1) of the Court Fees Act, is not free from difficulty. It is perhaps
arguable that the order is not final against the State. It is suggested that when a court
finds, on the report of the Inspector of stamps, that its decision regarding court-fees was
wrong it may consider the desirability of reviewing the order and recovering the court-fee
properly payable.
G.L.No.36/180-20 (12) dated 8th April, 1936 read with
Board of Revenue letter No.1718 Stamps 674-B-5 dated 6th March, 1936

All subordinate courts should impound every unstamped or under stamped
document brought to their notice by an Inspector of Stamps or otherwise, deal with it
under section 35 or 38(2) of the Stamps Act, as the case may be, and not return it without
any action, to the person presenting it.
C.L.No.38/X-e-10 dated 23rd April, 1956
Presiding officers should see that deficiently stamped documents are not accepted
in future.
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.