GUDIMETLA CHINA VARAHALU Vs. GUDIMETLA REDDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petnr. is a pltf. whose appln. for a refund of Court-fee of Rs. 277-7-0 the learned Subordinate Judge rejected in a rather cryptic order which reads as follows: "The ruling cited does not apply to this case. Hence rejected." Ha does not say what the facts are or what the ruling relied on is. The facts as placed before me are briefly these :

(2.) The petnr. filed a suit against his own father for recovery of about Rs. 3000/ . He paid a Court-fee of Rs. 0-12-0 on his plaint & was on 13-9-1946 given seven days time for payment of deficit Court-fee. He represented the plaint only on 7-11-1946 accompanied by an appln. for condonation of the delay in representation & also with deficit Court-fee of Rs. 276-11-0. The appln. for the condonation of delay was dismissed & on an appln. to reiund the Court-fee under Section 151, C. P. C. the learned Subordinate Judge passed this order which is now sought to be revised. Gudimetla China Varahalu vs. Gudimetla Reddayya (21.03.1949 -MADHC) Page 2 of 2

(3.) Sections 13, 14 and 15, Court-fees Act which make specific provision for refund of Court-fees do not apply to this case. It appears to be on all fours with the decision in 'In re Narayana Beddiar', 1942-1 MLJ 226 : (AIR (29) 1942 Mad 316). In that case the facts were very similar. A plaint was filed with insufficient Court-fee. An appln. for review against an order rejecting it was made accompanied by the balance of the Court-fee due. That appln. was rejected & the lower Ct. declined to grant a refund of the Court-fee. It was held that the Court-fee was not meant to be utilised until the petn. for review presented on behalf of the petnr. was accepted by the Ct. That principle, I think, is applicable to the present case, for the pltf. tendered the deficit Court-fee only on the basis that his appln. for condonation of delay would be admitted. With respect I am in agreement with the decision of Abdur Rahman J. in 'Narayana Reddi In re', 1942-1 MLJ 226 : (AIR (29) 1942 Mad 316) that in a case of this kind where no specific provision is made for the refund of Court- fee, Section 151, C. P. C. can be invoked to meet the ends of justice. There appears to have been no Impediment in the way of pltf. filing a fresh suit altogether; nor did the rejection of this plaint prevent him from doing so. This is clearly an equitable case in which the deficit Court-fee, tendered on representation viz., Rs. 276-110 should be refunded, & I direct accordingly.