The court has the discretion to refund the entire court fee paid on cross-objections, even if they are rejected on the ground that they were not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation.

( 1 ) THE matter comes up before us on an office Note regarding refund of Court fee. Four Cross objections were preferred by the petitioners against the compensation granted by the lower Court. All the Cross-objections were out of time and in one Cross-objection i. e. , SR. No. 64081/85 there is a petition to condone the delay.

( 2 ) ON 13-3-1986, the petitioners filed four petitions to direct the office to refund the Court fee under Section 63 of the Andhra Pradesh Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 saying that they are withdrawing the cross-objections at the SR stage. On this, the Office put up a note that Section 63 has no application since the appeals are not rejected by the Court.

( 3 ) THE technical objection raised by the Office that no refund can be made unless the Cross-objections are rejected presents no problem as they are before us now. We reject the Cross-objections as three of them are not presented within time and in one the delay is not properly explained. Then the questioned for consideration is whether the Cross-objectors are entitled for refund of Court fee under Section 63 of the Act. Section 63 of the Court fees Act is as follows :"63. Refund in cases of rejection of plaint, etc , for delay: (1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its representation 6r where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is insufficient and the deficit fee is not paid within the time allowed by the Court, or the delay in payment of deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the Court may, in its discretion, direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appelllant, of the fee, either in whole or in part, paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal which was rejected. (2) Where a memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation, one-half of the fee shall be refunded. "section 63 (1) provides for refund of Court fee either in whole or in part, when a plaint or appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in representation or payment of deficit Court fee. Section 63 (2) contemplates rejection of appeal where it is presented beyond the time prescribed. Appeal includes cross-objections. In such a case Section 63 (2) says that one half of the fee shall be refunded. While Section 63 (1) gives discretion to the Court to refund either in whole or in part, Section 63 (2) makes it obligatory on the part of the Court to refund one half of the fee. This is evident from the words "may" occurring in Section 63 (1) and "shall" occurring in Section 63 (2 ). Thus the distinction between the two sub-sections is that while it is discretionary under Section 63 (1) to refund the Court fee either in whole or in part, under Section 63 (2) it is obligatory to refund half of the Court fee. But section 63 (2) does not prohibit the Court from refunding the other half also. While it is obligatory to refund one half, it is discretionary with regard to the whole. The absence of the word "only" in Section 63 (2) clearly indicates that there is no prohibition to refund the entire fee. This is a case where appeals were filed against the orders of the lower Court enhancing the compensation and Cross-objections were filed by the petitioners complaining that the compensation awarded by the Court below is not adequate. Immediately after filing, they have withdrawn the cross-objections.

( 4 ) IN the circumstances, we think it is a fit case to direct refund of the entire Court fee. The Memorandum of Cross-objections are rejected and the entire Court fee paid thereon shall be refunded. Per Raghuvir, J.

( 5 ) SR. Nos. 64079, 64080, 64081 and 64082 of 1985 are cross- objections in Appeals A. S. Nos. 1642, 1641, 1648 and 1640 of 1985. The subject in these cases relates to compensation payable to the land-holders under the Land Aquisition Act, 1 of 1894. The Cross-objectors claim more compensation than what

Click Here to Read the rest of this document