Gudimetla China Varahalu vs Gudimetla Reddayya

The petitioner is a plaintiff whose application for a refund of court-fee of Rs. 277-7-o the learned Subordinate Judge rejected in a rather

cryptic-order which reads as follows:

The ruling does not apply to this case. Hence rejected.

He does not say what the facts are or what the ruling relied on is. The facts as placed before me are briefly these:

The petitioner filed a suit, against his own father for recovery of about Rs. 3,000. He paid a Court-fee of Re. 0-12-0 on his plaint and was on 13-

9-1946 given seven days'' time for payment of deficit court-fee. He re-presented the plaint only on 7-1-1946 accompanied by an application for

condonation of the delay in re-presentation and also with deficit court-fee of Rs. 276-11-0. The application for condonation of delay was

dismissed and on"" application to refund the court-fee u/s 151, Civil-Procedure Code, the learned Subordinate Judge passed this order which is

now sought to be revised.

Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act which make specific provision for refund of court-fees do not apply to the case. It appears to be

on all fours with the decision in Narayana Reddiar, In Re: Narayana Reddiar, . In that case the facts were very similar. A plaint was filed, with

insufficient court-fee. An application for review against an order rejecting it was made accompanied by the balance of the court-fee due. That

application was rejected and the lower Court declined to grant a refund of the Court-fee; It was held that the Court-fee was not meant to be

utilised until the petition for review presented on behalf of the petitioner was accepted by the Court. That principle, I think, is applicable to the

present case, for the plaintiff tendered the deficit court-fee only on the basis that his application for condonation of delay would be admitted. With

respect I am in agreement with the decision "" of Abdur Rahman, J., in Narayana Reddi, In Re: Narayana Reddiar, , that in a case of this kind

where no specific provision is made for the refund of court-fee, Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, can be invoked to meet the ends of justice.

There appears to have been no impediment in the way of plaintiff filing a fresh suit altogether; nor did the rejection, of the plaint prevent him from

doing so. This is clearly an equitable case in which the deficit court-fee tendered on re-presentation, viz., Rs. 276-11-0 should be refunded, and I

direct accordingly.