# orders without avoidable delay along with the office report and relevant papers. Presiding

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 15/VII-b-6
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1960-11-19
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 15/VII-b-6
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/orders-without-avoidable-delay-along-with-the-office-report-and-relevant-papers-163819
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

450
C.L. No. 15/VII-b-6 dated 23rd January, 1952

All presiding officers should pass clear orders directing that all interlocutory
applications filed in court or presented to the Munsarim, should be put up before them for
orders without avoidable delay along with the office report and relevant papers. Presiding
Officers should further see that orders on these applications are issued promptly by the
office.
C.L.No. 94/V/b-47 dated 22nd July, 1975

Presiding officers should fix hours for entertaining applications and disposing
them off and such timing should invariably be adhered to. They should also keep in mind
that no application, as far as possible, is disposed of in chambers.
C.L.No.45/VIIIb-6 dated 13th July, 1984

All the presiding officers should strictly comply with the provisions of rule 17 and
32 of General Rules (Civil) and instructions contained in above noted C.Ls. with regard
to the presentation and disposal of applications in the subordinate courts. Hence-forth, the
applications should invariably be entertained at the time fixed by the District Judge and
be disposed of by an order passed in court as soon as they are presented, as required by
the aforesaid rules and instructions of the Court.
(vi)
 Application under section 340 Cr.P.C.
C.L.No.17/VII-b-45 dated 4th February, 1952
Application under section 476 (new section 340, etc.) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should invariably be registered as a separate case and separate file, complete in
all respects, should be prepared in each case.
14.
COURT FEES AND STAMPS
(i)
Affixation and cancellation
G.L.No. 2874 dated 12th August, 1911
District Judges should impress on all the courts subordinate to them necessity of
attention to be paid to the under mentioned matters and should themselves look into them
while inspecting courts.
(1)
Stamps affixed in all pending cases shall be punched and no record shall
be deposited in the record room with unpunched stamps.
(2)
The following documents are often received unstamped and should be
specially attended to-
(a)
second or subsequent application to summon a witness,
(b)
application for examining a witness not summoned through court,
(c)
application to call for a record,
(d)
application to adjourn a case.
(3)
Number of words should invariably be noted upon certified copies.
(4)
The court-fee registers prescribed by the High Court should be properly
maintained.
451
(5)
The rules about the least number of stamps to be affixed to instruments
under section 21(f) of the Court Fees Act (rules 20, 21 and 108 of the
Stamp Rules- Stamp Manual) should be observed.
(6)
Papers filed in a case, especially applications to summon witnesses,
should always be entered in the flysheet.
(7)
Printed lists of process fees shall be exposed to view in courts as required
by section 20(d) of the Court Fees Act.
(8)
The register of process fees must show that fees for summoning
defendants and for issue of notices under rule 3, Order XXXII of the
Code of Civil Procedure have been paid.
G.L.No. 31/180-4(10) dated 17th November, 1928
District Judges should issue strict instructions to all courts in their judgeship as to
the necessity of a very careful scrutiny by the clerks concerned of all documents liable to
stamp duty.
G.L. No.72/47-1141 dated 4th August, 1976
The High Court has, in a stamp reference in first appeal no. 62 of 1952, upheld
the report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps that a document not stamped in accordance
with the provisions of rule 24 of the Stamps Manual is not properly stamped. All
presiding officers of civil court are, therefore, directed to see that the provisions of the
rule are strictly complied with unless a certificate is furnished to show that the requisite
stamps were not available at the time.

The provisions of rule 23 of the Stamps Manual should also be similarly complied
with.
C.L.No. 33 dated 18th March, 1961

In order to prevent fraudulent reuse of court fee and copy stamps the provisions
contained in rules 384, 386, 387 and 389 General Rules (Civil) 1957, Volume I, should
be strictly followed by all the courts. Besides the rules the instructions contained in the
Board of Revenue C.L. No. 16/Stamps-693-G, dated November 19, 1960 should also be
followed.
C.L.No.130/VIIIb-151 dated 21st November, 1978

Extreme care should be taken to check the records that forged court fee stamps are
not being used. If any instance of the use of forged court fee stamps comes to light,
immediate necessary action as the situation demands and is deemed essential and proper
should be taken in the matter.
C.L.No.63/VIIIb-151 dated 8th October, 1982

Absence of Ashok Pillar Watermark or any other required watermark in the court
fee stamp can establish it to be forged. This can be detected by seeing the stamps under
the sun as Ashok Pillar Watermarks will not be visible in the forged stamps.