AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ganapatia Pillai, J.—The Office Note points out that the order for refund of court-fee paid on Application No. 1531 of 1962, requires
ratification as the order for refund of court-fee would not be supported by Section 68 of the new Court-fees Act. Section 68 of the new Court-
Fees Act directs refund of the court-fee paid on any application for review, when the Court as a result of hearing the review application either
reverses or modifies the former decision on ground of mistake. What happened in this case was Application No. 1531 of 1962, was heard on the
merits and was dismissed. In other words, the review was refused and the previous order was not varied or modified. Mr. Seshan for the applicant
in that application, contends that apart from the provisions of the Court-fees Act the Court has inherent jurisdiction u/s 151 of the Code of CPC to
make the order of refund of court-fee paid on the review petition. He points out that there is no prohibition in the Court-fees Act against such an
order of refund being made. This approach to the problem is in my opinion not right. In a matter like refund of revenue collected by the state
lawfully the Court could exercise jurisdiction to make orders for refund only where specific authority is given to the Court under the Madras Court-
fees and Suits Valuation Act XIV of 1955. Mr. Seshan pointed out to me that if court-fee is collected by mistake in excess of the amount due on
the document, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to refund the excess collection. Under the old Court-fees Act there was no specific provision for
it. But the present Court-fees Act makes provision for that u/s 70 , which is in these terms:
Fee paid by mistake or inadvertence shall be ordered to be refunded.
In my opinion, even without any such provision the Court would have inherent jurisdiction to order refund of a fee collected by mistake or
inadvertance, because the collection itself will not be authorised by law, and the money thus collected did not become the property of the state.
That is the principle on which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction in ordering refund of court-fee collected by mistake or inadvertance. But
where the collection is legal, the money collected becomes the money of the state and the Court cannot assume any inherent jurisdiction to make
grants of revenue lawfully collected by the state by issuing refund orders unless the Court-fees Act confers such jurisdiction on the Court.
Therefore, my order will be modified by deleting the direction for refund of court-fee paid in Application No. 1531 of 1962.