P THIRUVENGADA MUDALIAR Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the admitted position in this case, that two appeals have been filed out of time and the court-fee paid also is not in full. Other defects have also not been rectified, with the result that the memoranda of appeals have not been placed for orders for condoning the delay or for admission. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not want to prosecute the appeals, perhaps some settlement has been arrived at outside the Court'and prays for permission for the refund of the court-fee paid on the two memoranda of ap-peals. He has also submitted that the petition for condoning the delay has also not been placed for orders of the Court.

(2.) THE relevant provision with regard to the refund of court-fee under the Tamil Nadu Court -fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is section 66. "66. Refund in cases of delay in presentation of plaint etc.' (1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay (1) in its re-presentation, or where the fee, paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is deficient (2) and the deficiency is not made good within the time allowed by law or granted by the Court, or the delay in payment of the deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the Court shall direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appellant of the fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected. (2) Where a memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation, one half of the fee shall be refunded. "