The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an application is transferred to the Tribunal, the excess fee paid by any litigant must be directed to be refunded.

T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in Miscellaneous Case No. 18 of 1997 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mangalore, rejecting an application under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 praying for refund of half court fee.

2. The facts that led to filing of the above petition before the trial Court was that a suit was filed in O.S. 247 of 1991 by the Syndicate Bank for recovery of money and under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993), a suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted in Bangalore and accordingly the matter stood transferred to the Tribunal for recovery of the amount. Ultimately the said proceedings i.e., O.A. 942 of 1995 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore was dismissed as settled out of Court. In view of the settlement out of the Court and when the Tribunal was not called upon to exercise any powers in the discharge of administration of justice, the applicant applied for refund of half court fee. The Petitioner also relied upon a decision reported in 1992 (2) LW 110 and sought refund of Court fee. The trial Court distinguished that decision and holding that when the matter was transferred to the competent Court, the Civil Court has no right to pass any order, much less, the order for refund of Court fee paid. Thus, the petition came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has come forward with the present revision.

3. It is contended by Mr. K. Radesh Prabhu that the Civil Court has got power to review of retransfer to the Court a suit transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of doing justice and that power cannot be denied by a self denial by the learned Prl. Civil Judge. The finding that once a suit is transferred and disposed of by the Tribunal, it is not possible for the Civil Court to exercise its jurisdiction is not proper, according to the learned Counsel. It is also submitted that by operation of law when the suit has been transferred, the Tribunal does not require payment of any additional court fee. In fact the Court fee payable to the Tribunal was much less and consequently he is entitled to refund of the entire court fee except the fee chargeable by the Tribunal for recovery of such sums of money. In a separate application under the provisions of Act 51 of 1993. The refusal to exercise jurisdiction is against the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Central Act 51 of 1993. Section 17 confers on the Debt Recovery Tribunal power and jurisdiction to decide the application of the Bank and Financial Institutions for recovery of debts due to them. While Section 31 provides for transfer of pending suit from the Civil Court to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and confers powers to decide such suits by treating them by its application there is no provision made out regarding court fee already paid. The Court fee having been paid before the Civil Court under the Karnataka Act 16 of 1958, it is the Civil Court that is competent to grant the relief as prayed for by the Petitioner-Bank. It is further submitted that when the Court is empowered to collect the Court fee after the disposal of the case from the parties, the power to refund the Court fee collected excess is deemed to have been impliedly available to the courts and such jurisdiction has not been properly exercised by the trial Court. It is further submitted that neither the Tribunal nor the Court nor the State of Karnataka be permitted to retain the amounts collected as the Court fee without rendering necessary services to the parties.

4. As against this submission, the learned Government Advocate Mr. Satish submitted that once the case gets transferred to the Tribunal, there is no power for the Tribunal to transfer back to the Civil Court or the Tribunal has power to direct refund of the Court fee. According to him, the Civil Court