# Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur v. M/S Bajrang Bali Rice Mills and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 943
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-08-26
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 1915 of 2010
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra, S.S. Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-panchayat-akbarpur-v-m-s-bajrang-bali-rice-mills-and-others-41751
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Court fee Act 1870 Section 6-A(1)-appeal
against order regarding sufficiency of
court fee-can be only by the plaintiff and
not by the person filling objection-held
appeal by defendant-not maintainable

Held: Para 9 and 13

Thus, the only person who can file
appeal under sub-section (1) of Section
6A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is the
person called upon to make good a
deficiency in court-fee. A person raising
objection on the ground of insufficiency
of court-fee paid in the suit has not been
given any right to file an appeal under
sub-section (1) of Section 6A of Court
Fees Act, 1870.

In view of the above, the present appeal
filed by the defendant -appellant is not
maintainable, and the same is liable to
be dismissed on this ground.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1954 All 188= 1953 ALJ 702.

## Text

3 All] Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur V. M/S Bajrang Bali Rice Mills and others
943
being
based
on
misreading
of
the
statements of the said witnesses cannot be
upheld. It is true that the confession of a
co-accused is not a substantive evidence
and there should be some evidence beyond
the confessional statement of co-accused,
but the learned Additional Sessions Judge
was not expected to Writ down a final
judgement at the stage of charge by
holding that the confessional statements of
co-accused was not relevant, without
giving due consideration to the legal
position that the confessional statements of
co-accused could be read in terms of
section 30 of the Evidence Act, as a
corroborative piece of evidence. Therefore,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
expected to peruse the confessional
statements
of
co-accused
and
other
materials available in the case diary
together and to find out whether or not any
charge against the applicant was made out.
In doing so, he was not required to
consider pros and cons of the evidence and
to record a final verdict, only a prima facie
consideration
of
the
materials
was
necessary by taking into consideration the
statements of the witnesses and co-accused
at their face value.

18. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated above, the impugned
order suffers from a material infirmity
resulting in causing failure justice in the
case. As such the impugned order cannot
be sustained.

19. The revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 22.3.2004 is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the
learned Additional Sessions Judge for a
fresh decision in accordance with law.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE S.S. TIWARI, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 1915 of 2010

Nagar
Panchayat
Akbarpur,
Kanpur
Dehat

 ...Petitioner
Versus
M/S Bajrang Bali Rice Mills and others

 ...Respondentss

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Chauhan

Court fee Act 1870 Section 6-A(1)-appeal
against order regarding sufficiency of
court fee-can be only by the plaintiff and
not by the person filling objection-held
appeal by defendant-not maintainable

Held: Para 9 and 13

Thus, the only person who can file
appeal under sub-section (1) of Section
6A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is the
person called upon to make good a
deficiency in court-fee. A person raising
objection on the ground of insufficiency
of court-fee paid in the suit has not been
given any right to file an appeal under
sub-section (1) of Section 6A of Court
Fees Act, 1870.

In view of the above, the present appeal
filed by the defendant -appellant is not
maintainable, and the same is liable to
be dismissed on this ground.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1954 All 188= 1953 ALJ 702.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The present appeal has been filed
under Section 6A of the Court Fees Act
,1870 against the Order dated 23.3.2010
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge(Senior Division) First, Kanpur
Dehat on an application No.61C-2 filed
on behalf of the defendant-appellant in
Original Suit No.172 of 2009 filed by the
plaintiff-respondent
no.1
against
the
defendant-appellant and the defendantrespondent nos.2 to 5.

2. It appears that the plaintiffrespondent no.1 filed the aforesaid
Original Suit No.172 of 2009 against the
defendant-appellant and the defendantrespondent nos.2 to 5 inter-alia, praying
for decree of declaration and prohibitory
injunction.

3. The aforementioned application
No.61C-2 was filed on behalf of the
defendant-appellant in the said Suit on the
ground that ad-valorem court-fee was
payable by the plaintiff-respondent no.1
in the said Suit, and the court -fee paid by
the
plaintiff-respondent
no.1
was
insufficient.

4. Objection no.80C-2 was filed on
behalf of the plaintiff-respondent no.1
against the aforesaid application filed on
behalf of the defendant-appellant.

5. By the impugned Order dated
23.3.2010 passed by the Court below
[Additional
Civil
Judge(Senior
Division)First, Kanpur Dehat], the said
application No.61C-2 filed on behalf of
the defendant appellant has been rejected.

6. The present appeal purporting to
be under Section 6A of the Court Fees
Act, 1870,has been filed by the defendantappellant against the said Order dated
23.3.2010.

7. We have heard Sri Pradeep
Chauhan,
learned
counsel
for
the
defendant-appellant, and perused the
record.

8. Section 6A of the Court-Fees Act,
1870, inserted by the U.P.Amendment,
makes provision for appeal against the
order to pay court-fee. The said Section is
reproduced below:

"6-A. Appeal against order to pay
court-fee.-(1) Any person called upon to
make good a deficiency in court-fee may
appeal against such order as if it were an
order appealable under Section 104 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

The party appealing shall file with
the memorandum of appeal, a certified
copy of the plaint together with that of the
order appealed against.

(2) In case an appeal is filed under
sub-section (1), and the plaintiff does not
make good the deficiency, all proceedings
in the suit shall be stayed, and all interim
orders made, including an order granting
an injunction or appointing a receiver,
shall be discharged.

(3) A copy of the memorandum of
appeal together with a copy of the plaint
and of the order appealed against shall be
sent forthwith by the appellate Court to
the Commissioner of Stamps.

(4) If such order is varied or
reversed in appeal, the appellate Court
shall, if the deficiency has been made
good before the appeal is decided, grant
to the appellant a certificate, authorising
him to receive back from the Collector
such amount as is determined by the
3 All] Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur V. M/S Bajrang Bali Rice Mills and others
945
appellate Court to have been paid in
excess of the proper court fee.

(5) The Court may make such order
for the payment of costs of such appeal as
it deems fit, and where such costs are
payable to the Government, they shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue."

Sub-section(1) of Section 6A of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 provides that any
person called upon to make good a
deficiency in court-fee may appeal against
such order as if it were an order
appealable under Section 104 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.

9. Thus, the only person who can
file appeal under sub-section (1) of
Section 6A of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is
the person called upon to make good a
deficiency in court-fee. A person raising
objection on the ground of insufficiency
of court-fee paid in the suit has not been
given any right to file an appeal under
sub-section (1) of Section 6A of Court
Fees Act, 1870.

10. Therefore, normally the appeal
under sub-section (1) of Section 6A of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 may be filed by the
plaintiff, as is also evident from a perusal
of sub- section (2) of the said Section.
However, in case the defendant makes
counter-claim in a suit under Rule 6A of
Order VIII of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908, the appeal under Section
6A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 may be
filed by such a defendant because such a
defendant will be in position of plaintiff
as regards the counter-claim.

11. Reference in this regard may be
made to the decision of this Court in Mst.
Kulsumun
Nisam
Vs.
Khushnudi
Begum & another, AIR 1954 All 188=
1953 ALJ 702.

12. Reverting to the present case, the
defendant-appellant has filed the aforesaid
application no.61C-2 raising objection
regarding insufficiency of court-fee paid
by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in the
aforesaid Original Suit No.172 of 2009.
The said application has been rejected by
the Court below. No appeal can be filed
by the defendant-appellant against the
impugned
Order
rejecting
the
said
application no.61C-2, as the defendantappellant is not the person " called upon
to make good a deficiency in court-fee"

13. In view of the above, the present
appeal filed by the defendant -appellant is
not maintainable, and the same is liable to
be dismissed on this ground.

14. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed on the ground that the same is
not maintainable at the instance of the
defendant-appellant.

15. This order, however, will not
come in the way of the defendantappellant in pursuing appropriate remedy
before the appropriate forum against the
aforesaid
impugned
Order
dated
23.3.2010.

16. Certified copy of this order will
be provided to the learned counsel for the
defendant-appellant within four weeks on
payment of usual charges.
---------
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3221 of 2006

Subhash and others

...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

U.P. Juvenile (Care and Protection of
children)
rules
2004,
Rule-22(5)-
Determination of age -date of birth
recorded in Municipal Corporation or in
school register-relevant-in absence thereof
medical
opinion
be
taken
into
consideration by giving one year margin.

Held: Para 7

Under the Rule 22 (5) of the U.P. Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2004, the date of birth certificate
issued by a corporation or a municipal
authority or school is the relevant material
for determining the age of the person who
claims to be a juvenile. In absence of these
materials, the medical opinion which is
controvertible
may
be
taken
into
consideration.
While
considering
the
medical opinion, a margin of one year for
determining the age may be given.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2005 SC 2731, (2009) 13 SCC 211, 2009
(64) ACC 754

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned
counsel for the revisionists and learned
AGA for the State.

2. This is a revision against the
order dated 9.5.2006 passed by Mr. S.
Lal, Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.3, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 45 of
1995 (State Vs. Natthi and others)
whereby the learned Additional Sessions
Judge refused to hold the revisionists
Subhash, Nanda @ Nan Kishore, Harpal
and Harkesh as juveniles.

3. It appears that the occurrence of
this case took place on 18.6.1994 and on
that date the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
was in force, in which a male person
upto the age of 16 years was considered
as
a
juvenile.
Learned
Additional
Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar appears to
have refused to declare the revisionists as
juveniles on the ground that they had
already completed 18 years before the
commencement of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 and based this finding on the
verdict of a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of Pratap
Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and
others AIR 2005 SC 2731.

The aforesaid Act of 2000 has been
materially amended in the year 2006 by
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) (Amendment) Act 2006 and
thereby an explanation was added in
section 20 of the Act of 2000 which is
extracted as follows:

Explanation- In all pending cases
including trial, revision, appeal or any
other criminal proceedings in respect of
a juvenile in conflict with law in any
court, the determination of juvenility of
such a juvenile shall be in term of clause
(l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile
ceases to be so on or before the date of
commencement of this Act and the