Petition for refund of Court fee paid negatived.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- This matter has come before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench consisting of my Lord, the Chief Justice and Ratnam, J. The facts which gave rise to the said order of reference may briefly be set out. The petitioner herein is the 8th respondent in S.A. 1606 of 1963, which was allowed by this court on 28-4-1977. Aggrieved against the said judgement the petitioner purported to file a Letters Patent Appeal before this court on the basis of leave granted by this Court while allowing the second appeal. On the office pointing out that the Letters Patent Appeal is not competent in view of Section 100-A, C.P. Code as amended by Central Act 104 of 1976, the petitioner realised that he cannot maintain the appeal. He then filed the present petition for the refund of court-fee purporting to be under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and Sec. 151, C.P. Code. Section 70 can have no application to the facts of this case as it could not be said that the court-fee had been paid by mistake or inadvertence. Though Mr. Vanchinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, concedes this position, he however seeks the grant of a certificate from this court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151, C.P. Code, not directing or recommending the refund of court-fee but indicating the circumstances under which the court-fee has been paid and defaced so, as to enable the petitioner to get a refund of the court-fee from the Revenue authorities ex gratia. According to him it has been the uniform practice of this court to grant a certificate stating the circumstances under which the court-fee was paid. Thus the question that arises for consideration by the Full Bench is whether in cases where refund cannot be ordered under any provision of the Court-fees Act the court can grant a certificate stating the circumstances under which the court-fee has been paid so as to enable the party to get a refund of the court-fee from the Revenue authorities ex gratia or otherwise.

2. The question of refund of court-fee has come up frequently before this court, Some decisions have been rendered with reference to the provisions of Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and the others have been rendered with reference to the provisions of Sections 66 to 70 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act of 1956 which has replaced the Court-fees Act of 1870 so. far as it is applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu. Sections 13 to 15 of the Court-fees Act of 1870 enabled a party to obtain a refund of the court-fee in the circumstances set out in those Sections. Dealing with the scope of Sections 13 to 15 of the 1870 Act, the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 600 had expressed the view that the said provisions were exhaustive of the provisions that enabled a party to obtain a refund of court-fee and that, therefore, there is no scope for an inherent power to grant a refund of court-fee apart from the said provisions, A similar view was taken in Tej Bahadur v. Pearelal, AIR 1957 All 734, wherein it has been held that the Court has no inherent power to grant a certificate for refund of court-fee for, if the court were to grant certificate in the supposed exercise of any such inherent power it would not be a case of refund being granted on the strength of a certificate, but on account of an act of grace on the part of the Government and, therefore, such a certificate being by no means mandatory, the court must refuse to grant it. In Tarachand Ghanshyamdas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1955 Cal 258 and Sriramulu v. Board of Revenue AIR 1965 Andh Pra 395, the court has taken the view that the Legislature having applied its mind to the question whether the fee levied in the first instance should be retained in all cases and specifically indicated the occasion on which the fee should be refunded the court cannot modify or add to the provisions by ordering refund in exercise of its