059-SLLR-SLLR-2005-V-2-SAMPATH-BANK-LTD.-vs-WEERASENA.pdf
CA
Sampath Bank Ltd. vs. Weerasena (Somawansa, J.P./CA)
337
SAMPATH BANK LTD.VS.WEERASENACOURT OF APPEAL,
SOMAWANSA J(P/CA),
WIMALACHANDRA J,
CALA 368/2004 (LG),
DC KURUNEGALA 7964/M,
MARCH 21,2005.
Environmental Statute No.8 of 1990 of North- Western Provincial Council -S.37-S.47 (2) and S. 106, Stamp duty on documents – should the documentsannexed to a plaint and pleaded as part and parcel of the plaint be stamped?
The trial Judge held that documents annexed to the plaint should be stampedseparately.
HELD
Where documents annexed to the plaint are pleaded as part and parcelof the plaint, the document so pleaded becomes part of the plaint andtherefore need not be separately stamped.
The Statutory Provisions Act No. 8 of 1990 do not require the documentsannexed to a plaint- should be stamped for the reason that the definitionof a document does not include the documents .annexed to the plaint.
Chandaka Jayasundara with Dushantha de Silva for plaintiff – petitioner.Respondent defendant absent and unrepresented.
cur. adv. vult
October 7, 2005
Andrew Somawansa, J. (P/CA)
This is an application for leave to appeal from the order of the learnedDistrict Judge of Kurunegala dated 06.09.2004 refusing the application ofthe plaintiff- petitioner to exempt levy of stamp duty on the documentsannexed to the plaint as part and parcel thereof and if leave is granted toset aside the order of the learned District Judge dated 06.09.2004.
338
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2005) 2 Sri L. R.
Though on several occasions notices have been issued on the defendant-respondent he was absent and unrepresented. Counsel for the ptainUff-petitioner having made oral submission has tendered written submissionsas well.
The relevant facts appears to be that upon institution of the instantaction the plaintiff – petitioner had paid the necessary stamp fees. Assummons had not been issued the registered Attorney-at-Law for theplaintiff – petitioner had made inquiries and had come to know thatsummons were not issued as stamp duty had not been paid separately inrespect of the documents annexed to the plaint. Thereafter counsel for theplaintiff – petitioner moved Court by way of a motion seeking an order ofCourt to accept the documents annexed to the plaint and pleaded as partand parcel thereof and that summons be re-issued without the levy ofstamp duty on documents pleaded as part and parcel of the plaint. Thelearned District Judge by her order dated 06.09.2004 rejected theapplication of the plaintiff – petitioner and held that annexed documents tothe plaint although pleaded as part and parcel of the plaint also has to bestamped separately.
At this point, it would be useful to consider the law relating to stampduty on documents filed in Court. In terms of Section 37 of FinancialStatute No.8 of 1990 of the North Western Provincial Council which readsas follows :
Thus under in terms of Section 37 of the aforesaid statute No. 8 of 1990every document presented or filed in proceedings in any Court of lawestablished by law in the North Western Province, stamp duty at the
CA
Sampath Bank Ltd. vs. Weerasena (Somawansa, J.P./CA)
339
prescribed rate will be charged. Section 47(2) of the aforesaid Statuteprovides that the total stamp duty chargeable in respect of documentsfiled in any proceedings in any Court shall not exceed the aggregate stampduty chargeable on the first ten documents filed by each party to theproceedings.
In Section 106 of the said Statute a document is defined as follows :
“Document” in relation to legal proceedings in any Court means anappointment of attorney, plaint, answer, replication or other pleading,petition, application, affidavit, appointment, summons, judgment, decree,order of any description, award, writ, warrant, inventory, account,mandate, bond recognizance ; citation, application other than motion,interrogations, answer to interrogations, notice of appeal, bill of costs,commission injunction or notice
It is to be noted that the aforesaid statutory provisions do not requirethat documents annexed to a plaint should be stamped for the reason thatthe definition of a document does not include the documents annexed tothe plaint. In any event where documents annexed to the plaint are pleadedas part and parcel of the plaint the document so pleaded becomes part ofthe plaint and therefore need not be separately stamped.
On an examination of the impugned order of the learned District Judgeit is obvious that she had not considered the aforesaid relevant provisionsof the aforesaid Financial Statutes No.8 of 1990 in the proper perspectiveand has misdirected herself on the law.
For the foregoing reasons, I would grant leave to appeal from the orderof the learned District Judge and set aside the order of the learned DistrictJudge dated 06.09.2004. As the defendant – respondent did not take partin the proceedings had in this Court, I make no order as to costs.
Wimalachandra, J. – / agree.
Appeal Allowed.