K. Obul Reddy vs V. Nagaiah

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the learned District Munsif, Kanigiri rejecting the application of the plaintiff for refund of the court-fee paid on the plaint.

The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant. Though initially court-fee paid was insufficient, later the required court-fee was paid. On the ground that no suit lies against the defendant in his individual capacity as the cause of action arose against him in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat , the plaint was rejected without numbering the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. 1125/83 for refund of court-fee of Rs. 186/- paid on the plaint. The learned District Munsif dismissed that application.

Sri S. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the plaint was rejected even without numbering, the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled for refund of the court-fee paid on the plaint. I am afraid I cannot accede to the submission of the learned counsel. Section 63(1) of the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which deals with the refund of court-fee, reads as follows:

"63. (1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeals rejected on the ground of delay in its re-presentation or where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is insufficient and the deficit fee is not paid within the time allowed by the court, or the delay in payment of deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the court may, in its discretion, direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appellant, of the fee, either in whole or in part, paid on the plaint or the memorandum of appeal which was rejected."

From a perusal of Section 63(1) it is clear that the court-fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal may be refunded, in the discretion of the court, provided that (i) the plaint or the memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its representation, (ii) where the fee paid on the plaint or the memorandum of appeal is insufficient and the deficit court-fee is not paid within the time allowed by the court and (iii) the delay in payment of the deficit court-fee is not condoned and plaint or memo of appeal is consequently rejected. It is only when the rejection of the plaint is on any one of the three grounds mentioned above that the court has the discretion to direct refund of the court-fee. In this case, admittedly the plaint was rejected on grounds other than those mentioned above. Therefore, the court-fee cannot be directed to be refunded.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that as the plaint was rejected without numbering, the court-fee paid may be directed to be refunded under the inherent powers of the court. In my view this submission also is not well-founded. When the refund of court-fee is specifically provided for in the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, there is no scope for invoking the inherent powers when the conditions for refund of the court-fee as provided under the Act, are not attracted.

In the result, I find no merit in this civil revision petition. It is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-