Court fees submitted are not refundable if used but can be returned for re-filing in the appropriate court.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Both these revision applications as well as petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are being heard and decided by this common judgment with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. While the miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Rent Authority, Agra dated 15.1.2024 directing for return of papers and court fees, the revision application arises out of an order passed by the Judge Small Cause deferring the hearing upon miscellaneous application filed by the applicant bearing paper no.22-C/6 as to the maintainability of the suit upon the payment of court-fee stamps, which could not have been utilised once cancelled or consumed by the earlier court while entertaining the suit/case.

3. Mr. Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate argued before the court that once the court fees submitted to a court to institute a case without which the case could not have been entertained, such court fees cannot be refunded as it stands consumed by cancelling it and the only remedy available to a litigant is to get a certificate from the court concerned to get the same liquidated from the Revenue Collector of the District to purchase fresh stamps to submit the court fees to maintain the suit in an appropriate court where it would be maintainable.

4. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgement of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Munna Lal and others versus Abir Chand AIR 1958 All 766 which came to be followed in the judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mushtaq Ali versus Anand ram and 20 others which followed the Full Bench view of the judgment of a coordinate bench in the case of Ravindra Kumar Gupta versus Additional Civil Judge Senior Division 2017 (5) ADJ 616 LG390/Manu/0931/2071. He has also placed before the court relevant Rule 7 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Rules, 2021 and also the Form 7 i.e. prescribed for presentation of a petition under the new Act and has also relied upon the meaning of the word ‘Form’ as given in Cambridge Dictionary in its online additioan to interpret ‘prapatra’ which means only ‘Form’ and not the court fees.

5. Countering the submissions so advanced as above by learned Senior Counsel, Sri Saxena, Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has advanced 2 fold arguments.

(i)- Return of the court fees along with the plaint for presentation before the proper court is the discretion exercised by the court in favour of the plaintiff and does not in any manner prejudice the defendant/respondent who has nothing to do with the payment of court fees so long as it is not deficient in a sense that it ousts the jurisdiction of the court concerned where it is presented.

(ii)- The returned court fees was used for it was not cancelled as was required to be done after it was submitted to the court initially.

(iii)- When the court does not apply its mind to the merits of the case and returns the plaint for its presentation before a competent court of law having the jurisdiction, there is no error of law in returning the plaint along with annexed court fees at the same time.

6. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Swapnil Kumar has placed reliance upon an order of the Supreme Court dated 25.10.2019 passed in the matter of Dr (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar v. T. Choithram and Sons & Ors. passed in a petition being Special Leave to Appeal (C ) No.18102 of 2013. He has also placed reliance upon the english version of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2021 to demonstrate that the word ‘prapatra’ would include the court fees as it is mandatorily required to be mentioned inasmuch as attached copies as referred to under Rule 7(3) would mean attached court fees as well.

7. It is further argued by Sri Swapnil Kumar that Judge Small Caus