IN THE ORISSA HIGH COURT 

B. H. Mohanty, D. P. Mohanty, R. K. Nayak, J. K. Bastia and S. C. Mohanty for the petitioner. 

Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. 

JUDGMENT 

P. K. MISRA J. - The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It has filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1997 in the court of the Civil judge (Senior Division) for specific performance of contract. Without paying the court fee payable on the plaint, it applied for exemption from payment of court fee on the basis of the Government of Orissa Notification S.R.O. No. 575 of 1994, dated June 7, 1994, published in the Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary No. 670, dated June 10, 1994. The said application having been rejected by the trial court, the present revision has been filed. 

There is no dispute that the State Government has issued a notification in exercise of power under section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which is extracted below : 

"In exercise of the powers conferred by section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870), the State Government do hereby remit in the whole of the State of Orissa all fees mentioned in Schedules I and II to the said Act payable for filing or instituting cases or proceedings in any court in Orissa by the following categories of persons, namely 

(i) member of scheduled castes; 

(ii) member of scheduled tribes; 

(iii) women; 

(iv) minors; 

(v) physically handicapped persons; 

(vi) persons whose annual income does not exceed twelve thousand rupees, and 

(vii) persons who are otherwise entitled to legal aid under the Orissa State Legal Aid and Advice Scheme, 1981. 

Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification - 

(i) 'member of scheduled castes' means a member of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within a caste, race or tribe specified as such with respect to the State of Orissa under article 341 of the Constitution of India, and 

(ii) 'member of scheduled tribes' means a member of any tribe, tribal community or part of or group within a tribe or tribal community specified as such with respect to the State of Orissa under article 342 of the Constitution of India." 

Under clause (vi) of the said notification, all persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 12,000 are exempted from paying court fee. The trial court rejected such application mainly on the ground that the plaintiff being a company cannot avail of the benefit of the said provision, as according to the trial court the notification had been issued only to protect natural persons belonging to the weaker sections 'of the society. The main question which falls for consideration, therefore, is as to whether the said provision contained in the notification is applicable only to natural persons or applicable to all juristic persons. 

It had been contended before the trial court and reiterated here that the expression "person" should also include a juristic person such as company, in view of the definition of the word "person" contained in the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 (Orissa Act 1 of 1937). 

Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended, on the other hand, that the various clauses in the notification clearly indicate that the intention of the State Government was to protect natural persons belonging to weaker sections of the society and such provision should not be applied to juristic persons such as company or partnership. 

The expression "person" has not been defined in the notification issued by the State Government under section 35 of the Court Fees Act. When a particular notification is issued under a particular Act, any expression used in the notification, but not defined, should ordinarily carry the same meaning as contained in the Act itself. In the present case, the expression "person" has neither been defined in the notification, nor defined in the Court Fees Act under which the notification had been issued. Since the expression has not been defined in the notification, nor even in the Parent Act, ordinarily, unless the context otherwise requires, the meaning of the expression as given in the Orissa General Clauses Act would be applicable. It is true that other provisions in the notification relating to exemption are relatable only to natural persons such as females, children or members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. However, the provision contained in the relevant clause which refers to the annual income of the person, cannot be confined to natural persons. The intention of the Government is to exempt persons who are not in a position to pay court fee keeping in view the economic condition. If the annual income of a juristic person such as a company or a partnership does not exceed the prescribed limit, such juristic person would be entitled to avail of the exemption under the notification. 

A similar provision regarding exemption from paying court fee has been made in Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the aforesaid provision, a person may be exempted from paying court fee if he is found to be an indigent person. Though the expression "person" has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held in the decision reported as early as in Perumal Koundan v. Tirumalarayapuram Janankoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi, AIR 1918 Mad 362, that the word "person" was not confined to only natural persons and a company could also sue as a pauper if other conditions are fulfilled. Such decision of the Madras High Court received express approval of the Supreme Court (though in a different context) in the decision reported in Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. v. K. Shreepathirao, AIR 1958 SC 658. Since the intention contained in Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the notification issued by the State Government under section 35 of the Court Fees Act, is of similar nature, it would be appropriate to give similar meaning to the expression "person" as contained in the notification. In view of the fact that the Madras High Court decision in Perumal Koundan v. Tirumalarayapuram Janankoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi, AIR 1918 Mad 562, has received express approval from the Supreme Court, it is needless to refer to other decisions on the point. Suffice it to say that the consensus of judicial opinion clearly points towards applicability of the provisions contained in Order 33 not merely to natural persons but also to juristic persons, such as company, partnership, etc. The notification issued by the State Government is a beneficial one, and a liberal meaning is to be adopted. 

Keeping in view all the aforesaid aspects, I am unable to agree with the view of the trial court on this aspect of the matter. Though the trial court has haltingly referred to the capacity of the company to pay the court fee amount payable, there is no categorical discussion of materials on this aspect. It is, therefore, necessary to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration regarding the annual income of the company in question. If on enquiry, the trial court comes to a conclusion that the annual income of the company does not exceed the prescribed limit under the notification, necessary direction may be issued by the trial court exempting the plaintiff from paying the court fee. 

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the civil revision is allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. There will be no order as to costs.