The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a suit is decided solely on admission without any investigation, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of one half of the court fee, and the court has a duty to grant the same. Additionally, the court clarified the limited scope of S.151 and S.152 of the Code for correcting decrees and judgments.

1. The suit is for money due under a chitty security bond. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. But before settlement of issues he withdrew all his contentions and admitted the plaint claim. The court passed a preliminary decree for sale under 0.34 R.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the following terms. (1) There will be a preliminary decree for sale in case the entire amount is not paid within six months. (2) If the entire amount is paid within six months and the defendant applies for full satisfaction of the decree within the said period without necessitating further investigation in a final decree proceedings plaintiff will be entitled to refund of one half court fee. In such a contingency costs will not include one half court-fee which will be refunded to plaintiff. Otherwise there will be no refund and plaintiff will get full costs. (3) Plaintiff will be at liberty to apply for a final decree for sale in case defendant fails to pay the amount within six months. In that event there will be no refund of court fee. Application for refund could be made only if the decree is satisfied within six months. Decree was drafted in terms of the judgment.

2. Amount was not paid within six months. Defendant filed an application under S.151 and 152 of the Code for correcting the decree and judgment. Except allowing correction of certain clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the decree the petition was dismissed. Defendant seeks to revise that order.

3. It is really unfortunate that such a decree was passed especially by a Subordinate Judge who is a senior judicial officer. There is no dispute regarding the fact (the learned Subordinate Judge had also no dispute) that the decree is on admission alone and not on the basis of any investigation. What S.69 of the Court fees Act says is that when a suit or appeal is compromised or when a suit is decreed solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation, one half of the court fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be ordered by the court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been paid respectively. The provision is mandatory and it does not depend upon the discretion of the court. When a suit is decreed solely on admission of the defendant without any investigation it is the right of the plaintiff to get refund of one half of the court fee and it is the duty of the court to grant the same. What is required is only that the suit must be decided solely on admission without any investigation. That condition is satisfied when the preliminary decree for sale is passed solely on admission. Refund has to be ordered then and there. It cannot be conditional on the defendant depositing the amount directed in the preliminary decree. The necessity for the plaintiff to apply for a final decree on account of the default of the defendant to deposit the amount has nothing to do with ordering refund of court fee. All the rights are determined by the preliminary decree and there is no question of investigation in the final decree. What remains is only enforcement of the preliminary decree by sale. Though the proceedings in final decree is also continuation of the trial of the suit, it is an independent proceeding starting on a fresh application. That proceeding has nothing to do with refund of court fee. Only a decision of the suit by passing the preliminary decree on admission is sufficient to order refund and in such a situation the court has no other go but to order refund. Payment of the decree amount by the defendant has nothing to do with the refund of the court fee.

4. Had only the Subordinate Judge taken pains to read S.69 of the Court fees Act which gave her the power and duty to order refund, this mistake would not have been committed. The counsel at least could have assisted the court in bringing the simple position of law to its notice. That is a matter affecting not only the plaintiff but the defendant also. When refund is r