THE 13TH MAY 1858. H. T. RAIKES, Esq., B. J. COLVIN, Esq., J. H. PATTON, Esq., Judges. J. S. TORRENS, Esq., CASE No. 467 OF 1855. MUSST. RAJESSOREE DASSEE AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS. The provisions in Act XIX. of 1853, that a docu THIS case, was refered for the consideration of the Court at large, on the 20th May 1857, by Mr. A. Sconce, under the following remarks recorded by him. "On the 16th February last, sitting in the miscellaneous depart- ment should be ment, I held that the special appeal of these petitioners, which had multaneously been admitted, could not be brought on the file, because they had with the failed to conform with the resolution of 26th June 1851. The peti- which it is retioners had attached to their petition of special appeal two exhibits, and the resolution in question required the petitioners to pay on the day of admission the exhibit fees due for these exhibits. These fees petitioners did not so pay. ought to pleadings in ferred to, does rule of Regulation X. of not affect the 1829, that each exhibit should be accompa nied with a separate stamped ap plication. fees chargeable on documents presented with petitions of special appeal not being delivered on the day of the order of admis "I am now asked to review that order. I think that it be reconsidered, and I admit the case for reconsideration. "Indeed, I doubt, if the ground taken, by the petitioners' pleader be tenable. He says that the failure to pay the exhibit fees is a default, and that petitioners were entitled to six weeks from the day of admission. I entertain some doubts as to this view of the law. No doubt, under the resolution of 7th May 1841, the law of default was held applicable to such a case, and petitioners were allowed six weeks from the date of admission to pay their exhibit fees; but this practice was overruled by the resolution of 26th June 1851. "What is meant by exhibit fees, is that, in conformity with article sion, the peti5, Schedule B. of Regulation X. of 1829, exhibits tendered in any tions will not be regular suit should be accompanied each by a stamped petition. A file of admitmere special appeal application appears not to have been considered, ted special apin itself, to form part of the procedure of a regular suit: and therefore, for the mere hearing of that petition, the exhibits submitted were not required to be accompanied by separate stamped applications. But on the order of admission being passed, the petition of special appeal became an application made in a regular suit; and accordingly, I presume, it was held that the application would not peals. be considered legally complete, unless the exhibits produced were accompanied with separate stamped petitions. "Thus, under the older law, as an exhibit could not be tendered by a mere verbal motion, a separate stamped application was indispensable. But possibly it may be held that Act XIX. of 1853, has in this respect, materially modified the older law. Section XL. of this Act directs that if any party shall, in any pleading or statement, refer to any document as a material matter of evidence, he shall file such document with the pleading or statement. Possibly we are to infer from these words that the document should accompany the pleading or statement; that this is imperative; and that it is not the meaning of this section, that the document could not be received unless the party made a separate application on stampt paper for permission to present it. "The provisions of Act XIX. of 1853, are not confined to regular suits, strictly so called, but extend to proceedings of any description; and as the legal application of Section XL., in the sense above referred to, is of much general importance, I submit this case to the Court at large, for the purpose of considering whether documents filed under the compulsory provision of Section XL. Act XIX. of 1853, with the pleading or statement in which they are referred to, should also be accompanied by a separate stamped petition under article 5, Schedule B. Regulation X. of 1829." Opinion of the Court at large. Upon the whole, it appears to us that the special provision made in the evidence Act, for the presentation of documents simultaneously with the petition in which they may be referred to, does not exempt the petitioner from the obligation contained in the stamp law. It is still now necessary, as before, that each exhibit should be accompanied by a stamped application of the value indicated in the 5th artical of Schedule B. Regulation X. of 1829. On the other hand, we see no reason to depart from the resolu tion of 26th June 1851, considering that the law of default is inapplicable in this matter. The special appeal of petitioners will accordingly not be brought on the file. Summary Application filed for correction of a decree passed in versus BRIJLAL OOPADHIAH AND OTHERS, (APPELLANTS,) Vakeel of Petitioner-Moonshee Ameer Alee. THE order of this Court, casting the plaintiff for all costs of the suit, was intended to include the costs also of this applicant. Summary Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. E. Latour, KISSENKAMINEE DASSEE AND OTHERS, (Decree-holders,) versus KASSISSUREE DASSEE, OPPOSITE PARTY. Vakeels of Petitioners-Baboos Shumbhoonath Pundit and Aushootosh Chatterjea and Mr. W. Montriou. Vakeels of the Opposite Party-Baboos Ramapersad Roy and Kishenkishore Ghose. Zillah judge's con THIS case was admitted to summary special appeal on the 22nd February 1858, under the following certificate recorded by Messrs. struction of the A. Sconce and J. S. Torrens. terms of a deed |