(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in Miscellaneous Case No. 18 of 1997 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Mangalore, rejecting an application under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 praying for refund of half court fee.
(2.) THE facts that led to filing of the above petition before the trial Court was that a suit was filed in O.S. 247 of 1991 by the Syndicate Bank for recovery of money and under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993), a suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted in Bangalore and accordingly the matter stood transferred to the Tribunal for recovery of the amount. Ultimately the said proceedings i.e., O.A. 942 of 1995 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore was dismissed as settled out of Court. In view of the settlement out of the Court and when the Tribunal was not called upon to exercise any powers in the discharge of administration of justice, the applicant applied for refund of half court fee. The Petitioner also relied upon a decision reported in 1992 (2) LW 110 and sought refund of Court fee. The trial Court distinguished that decision and holding that when the matter was transferred to the competent Court, the Civil Court has no right to pass any order, much less, the order for refund of Court fee paid. Thus, the petition came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has come forward with the present revision.
(3.) AS against this submission, the learned Government Advocate Mr. Satish submitted that once the case gets transferred to the Tribunal, there is no power for the Tribunal to transfer back to the Civil Court or the Tribunal has power to direct refund of the Court fee. According to him, the Civil Court has become functus officio once the transfer has taken place and the Tribunal constituted under the Act has taken over the control of the case.