VARKEY THOMMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner claimed half the court fee that he paid on an application moved in accordance with the provisions of S.11(2) and (3) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. He claimed refund because the parties compromised and the application was dismissed. The prayer for refund has been refused by the court below.

(2.) The question for decision is whether the petitioner is entitled to refund. Reliance has been placed exclusively on S.69 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 in support of this claim for refund. That section is in these terms:

(3.) It is contended that by virtue of the provision in S.11(3) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, we must take it that the court fee had been paid on a plaint. S.11(3), the relevant part of it, reads as follows:-