KISTOORMAL GULABCHAND Vs. SURAJ KARAN UDAIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the trial court refusing to issue a certificate for the refund of Court fee amounting to Rs. 300/-/-under sec. 63 (2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.

(2.) THE applicant filed a suit on 29-8-63 for the recovery of Rs. 4,858. 50 against the defendant. THE plaint was written on 5 impressed Court Fee stamps of Rs. 50/-/- and 5 of Rs. 10/-/- each, one adhesive Court Fee stamp of Rs. 5/-/-and 2 of Rs. 2/-/- were affixed to the impressed Court Fee stamps. . An objection was taken by the defendant that the plaint was not properly stamped in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Court Fee and Suits Valuation Rules, 1961. This objection was not decided by the trial court till after the entire evidence had been recorded and the arguments were heard. It was held that the plaint was not pro-perly stamped. THE plaintiff then purchased three Court Fee stamps of Rs. 100/-/-each and filed them. THEse stamps were also punched as the previous stamps on which the plaint was written had been punched. THE suit was decreed on 29-5-1966. On the date of decision after it had been given, the present application for the refund of an amount of Rs. 300/-/- paid as Court fee in impressed stamps of smaller denominations on which the plaint had been written was made under sec. 63 (2 ). THE trial court held that impressed Court Fee stamps of smaller denomination had not been purchased by mistake or in inadvertence on the ground that no affidavit of the Advocate who presented the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff had been filed, An affidavit of the applicant had been filed and no reasonable man can entertain any doubt that impressed stamps in smaller denomination were purchased by mis-take or inadvertence.