JUDGMENT :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

The point for consideration in this matter is whether under Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1955, refund of Court fees can be granted when a review petition filed under Order XLVII CPC is rejected on the ground of delay in its representation.

2. The review application SR.81895 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner seeking refund of court fees under Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The petitioner’s appeal O.S.A.No.178 of 2017 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.07.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application viz., Rev.Appl. SR81895 of 2017 on 20.10.2017 within the prescribed period to review the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed in O.S.A.No.178 of 2017. Even though the said review application was filed within the prescribed period, the said review application was returned by the Court Registry on account of certain defects. But the petitioner represented the review petition with a delay of 178 days.

3. CMP.No.10362 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner in review application SR81895 of 2013 to condone the delay of 178 days in representing the application to review the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed in O.S.A.No.178 of 2017. By order dated 21.08.2018, this Court dismissed CMP.No.10362 of 2018 filed by the petitioner in review application SR81895 of 2017 as no proper reasons were given by the petitioner to condone the delay of 178 days in representing the review application. After the dismissal of CMP.No.10362 of 2018, the instant application viz., CMP.No.20351 of 2018 in review application SR81895 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 seeking refund of court fees paid in the review application on account of dismissal of the application seeking to condone the delay of 178 days in representing the application for review.

4. This Court has perused and examined Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Since the said section deals with refund of court fees in cases where a plaint or memorandum of appeal was rejected on the ground of delay in its representation and does not specifically refer to review petitions, a doubt crept in the mind of this Court as to whether Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 applies to review petitions also. In view of the said doubt, the court felt it necessary to appoint an amicus curiae and accordingly, Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in this Matter. Only in cases where a judgment is reversed or modified pursuant to a review application, court fees paid for the review petition are permitted to be refunded under Section 68 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. But in the instant case, due to the rejection of the delay in representation application even before the numbering of the review petition, the review petition was rejected. Insofar as refund of court fees in appeals are concerned under Section 66 of the Act, refund of court fees is permissible, when the delay in representation of the appeal has been rejected. But, for a review petition, there is no specific provision for refund of court fees when the application for delay in representing the review petition is rejected. We need to now examine as to whether Sections 66 of the Act also apply to review petition.

5. Heard, Mr. K.K. Muralitharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.

6. Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, reads as follows:

“66. Refund in cases of delay in presentation of plaint, etc.- (1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its re-presentation, or where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is deficient and the defic