PRABHUNATH Vs. KHADIJATUL KUBRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Court-fee matter which arises in this way. The superior proprietary rights in a village were sold. Three suits for pre-emption were thereafter filed being numbered 4, 5 and 13 of 1945. Suit No. 5 of 1945 was decreed. The other two suits were dismissed. Prabhu Nath, the appellant in the present appeals preferred an appeal to this Court from the decree passed in suit No. 5 of 1945. This is first Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1946. Likewise he filed an appeal against the dismissal of Suit No. 13 of 1945. This is First Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1946. On these two first appeals, a consolidated Court-fee of Rs. 1269/- was paid. They came up for final hearing on two dates before the Uttar Pradesh Zemindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act I of 1950) came into force. These appeals were also listed on several dates for hearing in the year 1951. On 1st july 1952, the vesting order under that Act was made. Thereafter these appeals were again listed for disposal. Keeping in view Section 336 of the Act the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals admitted that they could not but end in dismissals. Section 336, Sub-section (2) states as follows:

(2.) AT a penultimate stage learned counsel had already made an oral application that in the circumstances, a refund should be ordered of the Court-fee paid on these appeals. At the time of dismissal of the appeals, learned counsel were heard in regard to their oral request. The orders in respect of that prayer were reserved.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel was that this was a fit case in which in the interests of justice, this Court should order a refund. It was not contended that any order for refund of the court-fees could be passed under Section 338 (2) of the U. P. Zemindari Abolition and Land reforms Act. That section deals only with the award of cost incurred. It was also conceded that the refund prayed for could not be granted under any of the relevant sections of the Court-Fees act. It was conceded that neither Section 10, 13, 14, 15 or 19a gave the Court power to order a refund of Court-Fees which had been correctly levied on an appeal which was competent on the date on which it was filed.