( 1 ). The common question of law arises for interpretation in all these appeals, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment. This judgment shall dispose of RFA (OS) Nos. 2,3,4 and 31/89.

( 2 ). During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant Bank, Mr. Ajit Singh, confined his submissions only to the refund of excess court fees paid by the appellant Bank in these appeals by mistake. Mr. Singh also submitted that the appellant bank filed these appeals only with the prayer for enhancing the rate of interest from 9% (granted by the Single Judge) to 17. 5% as claimed in the suits.

( 3 ). Mr. Singh submitted that the amount claimed by the appellant was unascertainable because one can never be certain whether the court would grant enhanced amount of interest. The appellant has no claim or right to get enhanced interest amount. It is only the discretion of the court. In a suit or appeal of this nature, it is impossible for anyone to estimate money value of the subject matter in issue.

( 4 ). He has drawn our attention to the Court Fees Act, 1870 and submitted that according to Schedule II, article 17 (vi) of the Court Fees Act, the appellant is liable to pay only filed court fee of only Rs. 10. Schedule II, Article 17 (vi) reads as under:

17 (VI) every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money-value the subject ten rupees matter in dispute, and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.

( 5 ). Mr. Singh contended that the case of the appellant bank is squarely covered by the aforecited Schedule 11 articles 17 (vi) of the Court Fees Act and accordingly the appellant Bank is required to pay only Rs. 10 as the fixed court fee. By mistake the appellant had paid the full court fee and therefore, the excess amount paid by the appellant by mistake be directed to be refunded.

( 6 ). In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a full bench judgement of Lahore High Court in Hakim Mehr Din vs. Swami Kultilak Ram ors. , AIR 1943 (13) Lahore 275. In somewhat similar circumstances, the full bench in this case observed as under:

"that the period from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation was divisible in two parts: (1) the period from the date of the institution of the suit up to the date of redemption, and (2) the period from the date of redemption upto the date of realization. As far as second period was concerned, the amount claimed by the plaintiff was unascertainable. "in the instant case also, from the date of the institution of the suit till realization, the amount is not ascertainable.

( 7 ). Mr. Ajit Singh has also placed reliance on a constitutional Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court State of Maharashtra vs. Mishrilal, AIR 1964 SC 457. In para 15 of the said Judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme has observed as under:

". . . . . . The reason really is that it is the value of the right claimed in the suit or appeal which is covered by the expression amount or value of subject matter in dispute in Art. 1, Schedule I, of the Act and that the plaintiff has no right to get any of these amounts from the defendant though the court may, in its discretion, allow future interest and costs according to the circumstances of the suit in view of Ss. 34 and 35 C. P. C. This principle equally applies to the non-inclusion of the decreed amounts of pendente lite interest in evaluating the subject matter in dispute in appeal as that too is awarded in the exercise of its discretion by the court and the plaintiff has no right or claim for that amount against the defendant. "

( 8 ). Reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Dwarka Singh vs. Nagdeo Singh and others, AIR 1961 Patna 390. In para 6 the court observed that

"when the party by mistake has paid an excess amount of court fee than is payable by him, and the court is satisfied about it, it is obvious that the excess amount w