# until there is a certainty that the copy will be granted

- **Citation:** C.L.No.18/67-1(8)
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1973-02-19
- **Case number:** C.L.No.18/67-1(8)
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/until-there-is-a-certainty-that-the-copy-will-be-granted-163834
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

453
They should, therefore, be punched at the time of issue of copy and that where an
application for copy is rejected such copy folios and labels should be returned to the party
concerned unpunched.

Court fee labels surcharged ―For copies only‖ may be accepted to complete the
payment for copies issued on copy folios but they should not be affixed to the copy folio
until there is a certainty that the copy will be granted.

In the case of loose copy labels filed in order to make up the copying fee in
certain cases, the amended rule shall apply and such labels shall be punched as soon as
they are filed. In case they have to be returned on account of the application for copy
being rejected, or for some other reason, the party concerned can, under para 1357 of the
Revenue Manual, claim a refund of the value of such labels after deduction of 6 n.p
(Re.0.06) in a rupee or fraction thereof. The cancellation order should be written in red
ink ―Cancelled‖. This is to ensure that the labels are not used again.

In affixing the labels, care must be taken to ensure that the head on the label is
nearest the edge of the folio. This is to ensure that no written or typed matter is defaced if
the label is punched. In no circumstances should an adhesive stamp be affixed in the
centre of the folio.
 Cancellation of impressed stamps
G.L.No. 12/VIII-b-149 dated 13th April, 1949
Impressed stamps on probate, letters of administration, certificates, or copies
should not be punched when probate, letters of administration, certificates and copies are
issued. They may, however, be defaced by the use of a rubber stamp mentioned in rule
254 of the Stamp Rules as provided in rule 252(b) of the said rules.
No court-fees payable under rule 159(i) General Rules (Civil)
C.L.No.18/67-1(8) dated 24th April, 1939
No duty under the Stamp Act or the Court Fees Act is payable in respect of a copy
filed under rule 159(i) of General Rules (Civil), 1957.
C.L.No.45/VIII-b-151 dated 23rd May, 1973
Directions contained in letter no. 3/Stamps-978(2), dated February 19, 1973, of
the Inspector General of Stamps may be strictly followed so that use of forged court fee
stamps or fraudulent reuse thereof may be prevented.
(ii)
Deficiency
C.L.No. 22/180-20(5) dated 2nd March, 1936
It is the duty of the presiding officer of each court to take proper steps to ensure
that the inspection note of the Inspector of Stamps is laid before him without delay.
C.L.No. 27/VII-f-26 dated 10th March, 1953

Attention of all presiding officers is invited to the mandatory nature of the
provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Court Fees Act, 1870
according to which the question as to deficiency in court-fee raised by Inspector of
Stamps has to be decided by the court before proceeding further with the case.
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.