003-NLR-NLR-V-67-PANDITA-DHAMMINDHA-NAYAKA-THERO-Petitioner-and-F.-J.-DIAS-Respondent.pdf
1964Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J., and Sirimane, J.
PANDITA DHAMMINDHA NAYAKA THERO, Petitioner, and
J. DIAS, Respondent
S.C. 476)64—Application for Revision in D. C. Colombo, 781 )Z
Stamp duties—Application in revision—Production of certified copies of Court pro~ceedings—Value of stamps which should be affixed—Civil Procedure Code,s. 205—Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 247), Schedule A, Part I, item 24 ; Part II,items 11, 32, 33.
In an application for revision, certified copies of proceedings in a DistrictCourt case, certified by the Secretary of that Court, and stamped accordingto the value or “ class ” of that action, as set out in Part JI of the StampOrdinance, need not be stamped again when they are proi i ced in the SupremeCourt. Item 24 of Part I of Schedule A of tie Stamp Ordinance does notapply to certified copies of proceedings in Court which are specially provided,for in Part II.
.A-PPLICATION to revise an order of the District Court, Colombo.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with Miss Maureen Seneviratne, for Petitioner.
J. G. T. Weeraratne, Crown Counsel, with A. A. D. de Silva, as AmicusCuriae.
Cur. adv. wit.
December 16, 1964. Sibimakb, J.—
In this application for revision, the petitioner annexed certain certi-fied copies of proceedings in a District Court case, certified by the Secre-tary of that Court, and stamped according to the value or “ class ” ofthat action, as set out in Part II of the Stamp Ordinance (Chapter 247).
Section 205 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as follows;—
“ Upon being paid such fee as the court shall from time to time deter-mine, the secretary or chief clerk of the court shall at all times furnishto any person applying for the same, aid supplying the necessarystamp, copies of the peoeee lings in any action, or any part thereof, orupon such application and production of such stamp shall examineand certify to the correctness of any such copies made by such person.”
The Registrar of the Supreme Court had refused to accept these paperson the ground that they were not properly stamped. His contention,shortly, is as follows :—Certified copies of documents issued by a publicofficer fall under Item 24 of Part I in Schedule A to the Stamp Ordinance,which provides for a stamp duty of Re 1 on such a copy. He contendsthat thereafter, when such certified copies are pro duced in Law proceedingsthey shoull be stamped aguin. according to the Class of the case and theCourt in which they are prduced, as set out in Part II of the StampOrdinance. The proctor for the petitioner has contested the correctnesso^ the Registrar’s contention, and has submitted that the certified copieshave been correctly stamped by the certifying officer, and that no furtjjerstamping is necessary.
The question whether these exhibits have been correctly stamped hasbeen referred to us.
Item 24 referred to above reads as follows :—
“ 24. Copy or extract, certified, of any document issued by aPublic Officer not otherwise specially provided for l'OO ”
The item appears in Part I of Schedule A, the heading, of which readsas follows:—
“ Containing the duties on instruments of conveyance, contracts,obligations, and security for money ; on deeds in general and on otherinstruments, matters and things not falling under Parts XI, III, IV andV.”
Item 33 in Part II under the heading “ In the District Court. ” isas follows :—
“ 33. Copy duly certified of all matters of record not otherwise
provided for” (The different stamp duties according to the
class of the case are then set out.)
I think it is clear that item 24 which appears in Part I does not applyto certified copies of proceedings in Court which are specially provided forin Part II.
A document which is properly stamped need not be stamped againwhen produced in Court proceedings.
Item 11 in Part II which applies to stamp duties on documentsproduced in the Supreme Court provides for the payment of duty on an“ Exhibit of every document on which no stamp is affixed or impressedunless the duplicate bears a stamp ”.
Item 32 makes a similar provision for documents produced in theDistrict Court.
The learned Crown Counsel whose assistance at the argument wethankfully acknowledge, while placing before us the Registrar’s point ofview, also drew our attention to the fact that Item 24 was introducedonly in 1919 by Ordinance No. 32 of that year, while duties on lawproceedings were provided for, even as far back as 1890 (See Scheduleto Stamp Ordinance 3 of 1890).
For these reasons we are of the view that the exhibits in this casehave been correctly stamped and should be accepted.
Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—I agree.
Exhibits declared to have been correctly stamped.