TEJ BAHADUR Vs. PEARELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of our brother Sri Narain Salmi refusing to issue a certificate to the appellant for the refund of court-fee.

(2.) The appellant filed a second appeal in this Court and paid ad valorem court-fee amounting to Rs. 142/8/- on it; that was the proper amount of court-fee payable on the memo of appeal. No second appeal lay and the appeal would have been dismissed but for the request of the appellant that it might be treated as an application in revision under Section 115 C. P. C., which request was granted, on an application for revision less court-fee was payable than had been paid by the appellant; consequently he made an application purporting to be "an application under Section 151, C. P. C., in Civil Revision No. 1140, of 1953" praying for refund of the excess amount of court-fee. The application was dismissed by our learned brother who was not satisfied that any case had been made out for refund. This special appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Rules of Court.

(3.) Under Chap. VIII, Rule 5 an appeal lies from a judgment which is not an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of one Judge. The first question that arises is whether the order of our learned brother amounted to a judgment and the next question would be if it was not an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no definition of 'judgment' in the Rules but the word has teen interpreted in several decisions. In R. Wall v. J. E. Howard ILR 17 All 438 (A) Burkitt J., at page 442 observed as follows: