1. The question arising in this revision is whether the court fee paid on a plaint presented in the wrong court could be given credit to when the plaint is represented in the proper court. The suit was originally filed in the Munsiffs Court of Quilandy. It was found on a preliminary enquiry that the plaint claim was undervalued with a view to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. The plaint was accordingly returned. From that order the plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and the learned District judge in dismissing the appeal pointed out that the plaint could be re-presented after deleting the prayer for recovery, thereby bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff court. From that order a revision was preferred to this court in CRP. 16/64 and in dismissing that petition this court observed:

"The learned judge has pointed out that the plaintiff can re-present the plaint with the prayer for recovery of the buildings deleted. In view of this, no interference is necessary. Dismissed."

After this the prayer for recovery of the building was deleted and the plaint was re-presented in the self-same Munsiff 's Court. There the question arose whethe