KRISHNAPUR MATADIPATHI VIDYASAGARA THIRTHA SWAMIAR Vs. KAMALA SHEDTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein had instituted suits in the Court below for recovery of arrears of rent from their respective tenants. THE said suits, after the coming into force of Karnataka Act 1 of 1974 amending the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, stood transferred to the Court of the Tahsildar. THEreupon, the plaintiffs made applications in the Court below for refund of the court fee paid on the plaints. THE claim for refund is made under Sec.67 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, read with S.151 of the CPC, THE said applications have been dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have preferred the above revision petitions.

(2.) THE claim for refund is clearly misconceived. S.67 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, reads thus : " 67. Refund of fee paid by mistake or inadvertence.-THE fee paid by mistake or inadvertence shall be ordered to be refunded." It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the court-fee was paid under a wrong provision of law by mistake or inadvertence, or that the calculation of the court-fee was made by mistake or inadvertence. THE court-fee that was leviable in accordance with law, was paid on the plaints when they were instituted. Subsequently, by operation of law, the suits stood transferred to the Court of the Tahsildar who became the competent' authority to dispose of the matters. While Karnataka Act 1 of 1974, by operation of law, transfers the pending suits for recovery of rents from agricultural tenants, it makes no provision for refund of the court-fee paid on the plaints instituted. THE claim for refund does not fall under S.67 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is not the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the matters could be brought under any of the provisions of the Court Fees Act. His only submission is that under the inherent powers of the Court under S.151 of the CPC, it is open to the Court to order refund. When there is a law expressly governing the matter of refund, there is no inherent power in the Court to order refund. THErefore, there is no merit in these petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed but without costs.