John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.
1. This is an application to refund a sum of Rs. 1,025 paid by the applicant as Court-fee on certain cross-objections which were filed in January, 1941, in First Appeal No. 251 of 1940. The cross-objections were out of time and accordingly the Registrar refused to register them under Rule 9 of the Appellate Side Rules. Thereupon the applicant made an application to the Court under Rule 71 to excuse the delay and that application was rejected by the Court. The applicant, therefore, applied under Rule 143 for the refund of the Court-fee. That rule provides that whenever registration of any appeal, memorandum of cross-objections or application is for any reason refused by the Registrar, a refund certificate shall on application be granted to the party or his advocate entitling him to receive back the value of the Court-fee stamps cancelled in the office in respect of such appeal, memorandum of cross-objections or application and the copies therewith filed. The application originally came before Mr. Justice Divatia, who thought that Rule 143 did not apply because the registration had not been refused by the Registrar, but that it was the Court which had refused to excuse the delay, and thereby made the registration of the cross-objections impossible. However on the application of the learned advocate, who appeared for the applicant, the learned Judge referred the matter to a bench.
2. I think the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be supported. The registration was refused by the Registrar, and properly refused, because the cross-objections were out of time. The Court subsequently declined to excuse the delay and the effect of that was merely to uphold the refusal of the Registrar to register the cross-objections. In my opinion the case falls within the plain terms of Rule 143, and we must therefore direct a refund.
N.J. Wadia, J.
1. I agree.