Skip to content


Ramakant Patak Vs. Murlidhar Pande - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in170Ind.Cas.483
AppellantRamakant Patak
RespondentMurlidhar Pande
Excerpt:
court-fees - refund of--plaintiff paying deficit court-fees and failing to make up deficiency even within time allowed--plaint rejected--court-fees already paid, if can be refunded. - - he, failed to make any payment and his plaint was consequently rejected. plaintiff when he institutes a suit should discover the amount of court-fee which he had to pay and if he fails to do this, he cannot complain if he suffers in any way. we are satisfied that in the circumstances reported the court had no jurisdiction to make an order of refund and we answer the reference accordingly......weeks and then a further period of two days for the payment of the amount still due. he, failed to make any payment and his plaint was consequently rejected. thereupon he made an application for the refund of the sum of four annas which he had already paid upon the plaint. the learned judge in making this reference has admitted that there is no specific provision of law under which the amount paid could be refunded. he has thought, now-ever, that it was unfair to take the money from the plaintiff and at the same time to refuse to take any action upon the plaint. he has referred to the case in manna lal v. ram chandra : air1930all471 in which it was held that a court had inherent jurisdiction to refund an excess payment on account of court-fee.2. we do not think that the principle.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, made by the Judge of tae Court of small Causes at Mohammadabad in the district of Ghazipur. A. plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 69 10-0 and paid a court-fee of four annas only. There was a deficiency. The plaintiff was allowed a period of three weeks and then a further period of two days for the payment of the amount still due. He, failed to make any payment and his plaint was consequently rejected. Thereupon he made an application for the refund of the sum of four annas which he had already paid upon the plaint. The learned Judge in making this reference has admitted that there is no specific provision of law under which the amount paid could be refunded. He has thought, now-ever, that it was unfair to take the money from the plaintiff and at the same time to refuse to take any action upon the plaint. He has referred to the case in Manna Lal v. Ram Chandra : AIR1930All471 in which it was held that a Court had inherent jurisdiction to refund an excess payment on account of court-fee.

2. We do not think that the principle expressed in that case has any reference to the issue before us, When a Court refunds an excess payment it is refunding really not an amount of court-fees but an amount mistakenly paid under the guise of court-fees. In the case before us there is no specific provision under which the refund could be ordered and there is no real justification for the suggestion that the plaintiff was being unfairly treated. A. plaintiff when he institutes a suit should discover the amount of Court-fee which he had to pay and if he fails to do this, he cannot complain if he suffers in any way. We are satisfied that in the circumstances reported the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order of refund and we answer the reference accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //