The High Court has no inherent power to order a refund of court fees in a case where the memorandum of appeal has been properly presented to the court and the appeal has also been registered and numbered by the court.

VLSWANATHA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) T. R. C. NO. 14 of 1956 is an application filed on behalf of the assessee for revision of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal appeal No. 120 of 1955. When the case came on for hearing before us, Sri n. Rajeswara Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner represented that the Revision Case might be dismissed as withdrawn. Simultaneously with this representation, he presented a Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying, that a certificate may be granted to the petitioner that the court-fee stamp of Rs. 100/- affixed to the memorandum of revision "had been defaced by the high Court in the usual course of routine and that the amount of the stamp might be refunded to the petitioner by the Collector after deducting one anna in the rupee. " In support of this prayer Sri Rajeswara Rao cited the decision of Satyanarayana Raju J. in C. M. P. No. 5776 of 1955 where the learned judge made an order in S. A. No. 626 of 1955 in the terms now prayed for by the petitioner. No reference is made in the order of the learned Judge to any statutory provision or precedent justifying it. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act do not obviously apply to the case of the withdrawal of an appeal or a revision petition. The question may however arise and has arisen, whether the court has got inherent power to grant refund of court-fee in cases not falling within the provisions of the court-Fees Act.

( 2 ) IN Thamayya Naidu v. Venkataramanamma the learned Judges found that the appellant before the High Court had paid ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 2332-7-0 in a land acquisition appeal by mistake, when all the court-fee that he need have paid was Rs. 500/ -. The appellant applied for a refund of the excess court-fee paid by him. The court over-ruled the objection of the Government Pleader that there was no power in the court to go beyond the provisions of sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act which allowed a refund of the court-fee only in certain cases and that the case before the high Court was not covered by any of those provisions. It was held that under Sec. 151 C. P, C. the High Court had power to order a refund of court- fee paid in excess under a bonafide mistake. The learned Judges observed as follows :"it would be unreasonable and unjust for the High Court not to assist a party to recover excess court-fee erroneously paid under its own order or under the orders of Courts subordinate to it. Of course what the High Court really does judicially in such a case is to decide judicially what is the proper court-fee and then issue a certificate to the party that excess court-fee has been levied. "a precise and comprehensive statement of the power of the High Court to order a refund of court-fee by the learned Judges of the Madras High Court will be found in Chidambaram Chettiar In re where it was observed :" The court can order a refund (i) where the Court Fees Act applies, (ii) where there is an excess payment by a mistake or (iii) where, on account of the mistake of a Court, a party has been compelled to pay court-fees either wholly or in part. Outside these cases the Court has no power to order a refund. "in In Re Kappini Gowder , another decision of a Division Bench, the Madras high Court had to consider this question of the power of the court to order a refund of court-fee in a case where an appeal was withdrawn as having been settled out of court and the appellant applied for a refund of the court- fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. After pointing out that the provisions of sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act did not authorise a refund of court-fee in such a case, the court declined to make the order in the exercise of its inherent power. The learned Judges observed : the courts have gone to the extent of holding that they can order a refund under their inherent powers, where an excess court-fee has been paid (i) by mistake of party and (ii) in obedience to a wrong order of Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document