# under section 21(f) of the Court Fees Act (rules 20, 21 and 108 of the - **Citation:** C.L.No. 33 - **Court:** Allahabad High Court - **Decided:** 1960-11-19 - **Case number:** C.L.No. 33 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/under-section-21-f-of-the-court-fees-act-rules-20-21-and-108-of-the-163824 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 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. 452 Punching of second punch hold on stamps G.L.No. 39/44-40(8) dated 3rd December, 1929 Rule 191, Chapter VII of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, is practically a replica of rule 259, Chapter VIII of the Stamps Manual. It is intended to ensure that the record - keeper or one of his assistants should personally see every court-fee label. He has to see that it is properly defaced to ensure that it cannot be fraudulently utilized a second time and also that the proper court fee has been paid. The mere punching of a second hole is not all; it is the dating of each document, which ensures its inspection by the record room staff. The date on the document should not be stamped, but should be made by the record - keeper in his own handwriting. All record -keepers should be warned that they are personally responsible for strictly complying with the rule in question. C.L.No.15/Stamps 947/G dated 21st May, 1963 read with C.E.No. 50/VIIId-149 dated 21st August, 1963 In order to prevent reuse of court fee stamps the attention of all the presiding officers, is invited to section 30 of the Court Fees Act and rules 252 to 261 of the Stamps Rules which lay down that no document shall be filed or acted upon in any court or office until the stamps affixed thereto have been cancelled and they are also required to pay personal attention to see that strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law is made by the presiding officers of courts and the officials concerned. Failure to punch and cancel stamps should be taken serious notice of and suitable action should be taken against the negligent officials. Folios and adhesive court-fee labels C.L.No.109/VIII-149 dated 22nd October, 1952 In court fee stamps bearing the design of Ashoka Pillar, the top of the Pillar should be punched for purposes of cancellation under section 30 of the Court fees Act. G.L.No.52/86 dated 7th December, 1933 read with Board of Revenue letter No.3594/S-258-c dated 15th November, 1933 G.L.No. 31/86 dated 28th May, 1934 modified by C.L.No. 35-56-1 dated 2nd June, 1934 and C.L.No.71-180-34(1) dated 18th July, 1936 and C.L.No.5/8 b-82 dated 8th January, 1952 Only one kind of copy folio of the value of Re.0.25 is printed in this State and adhesive court fee labels of certain denominations are surcharged with the words ―For copies only‖ so that extra payment may be made by means of such labels. The amendment of rule 257 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, made under Finance Department notification no. S-458/X-504-48, dated the 21st February, 1951 published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, part I, dated the 2nd March, 1951 necessitating the cancellation and punching of copy labels as soon as they are filed in any court or office does not apply to copy folios and copy labels affixed thereto which are filed with applications for copies.