1 The common question of law arises for interpretation in all these appeals, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment. This judgment shall dispose of RFA (OS) Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 31/89.

2 During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant Bank, Mr. Ajit Singh, confined his submissions only to the refund of excess court fees paid by the appellant Bank in these appeals by mistake. Mr. Singh also submitted that the appellant bank filed these appeals only with the prayer for enhancing the rate of interest from 9% (granted by the Single Judge) to 17.5% as claimed in the suits.

3 Mr. Singh submitted that the amount claimed by the appellant was unascertainable because one can never be certain whether the court would grant enhanced amount of interest. The appellant has to claim or right to get enhanced interest amount. It is only the discretion of the court. In a suit or appeal of this nature, it is impossible for anyone to estimate money value of the subject matter in issue.

4 He has drawn our attention to the Court Fees Act, 1870 and submitted that according to Schedule II, Art.17(vi) of the Court Fees Act, the appellant is liable to pay only fixed court fee of only Rs. 10. Schedule II, Art.17(vi) reads as under:
17(vi) Every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money - value the subject Ten rupees matter in dispute, and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.

5 Mr. Singh contended that the case of the appellant Bank is squarely covered by the aforecited Schedule II, Art.17(vi) of the Court Fees Act and accordingly the appellant Bank is required to pay only Rs. 10 as the fixed court fee. By mistake the appellant had paid the full court fee and therefore, the excess amount paid by the appellant by mistake be directed to be refunded.

6 In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a full bench judgment of Lahore High Court in Hakim Mehr Din v. Swami Kultilak Ram Ors. , AIR 1973 (13) Lahore 275. In somewhat similar circumstances, the full bench in this case observed as under:
"that the period from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation was divisible in two parts: (1) the period from the date of the institution of the suit up to the date of redemption, and (2) the period from the date of redemption upto the date of realization. As far as second period was concerned, the amount claimed by the plaintiff was unascertainable."
In the instant case also, from the date of the institution of the suit till realization, the amount is not ascertainable.

7 Mr. Ajit Singh has also placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court State of Maharashtra v. Mishrilal , AIR 1964 SC 457 . In para 15 of the said judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme has observed as under:
".....The reason really is that it is the value of the right claimed in the suit or appeal which is covered by the expression 'amount or value of subject matter in dispute' in Art.1, Schedule.1, of the Act and that the plaintiff has no right to get any of these amounts from the defendant though the Court may, in its discretion, allow future interest and costs according to the circumstances of the suit in view of S.34 and 35 C.P.C. This principle equally applies to the non inclusion of the decreed amounts of pendente lite interest in evaluating the subject matter in dispute in appeal as that too is awarded in the exercise of its discretion by the court and the plaintiff has no right or claim for that amount against the defendant."

8 Reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Dwarka Singh v. Nagdeo Singh and Ors. , AIR 1961 Patna 390.
In para 6 the court observed that
"When the party by mistake has paid an excess amount of court fee than is payable by him, and the court is satisfied about it, it is obvious that the excess amount was never paid under any provisions of the Court Fees Act in any of the schedules and as suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document