Judgment:
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The court-fee payable in the appeal is Rs. 4, 146.75 paise as reported by the Stamp Reporter. The appellant had. however, paid court-fee of Rs. 6,754/- obviously by mistake. On the basis of an application of the appellant for refund of excess court-fee, this Court directed the Stamp Reporter by order dated 23.8.1995 to examine the question and on further examination, the Stamp Reporter by note dated 2.9.1995 indicated that, in fact, an excess court-fee of Rs. 2,607.25 paise had been paid. On 19.9.1995, this Court directed that the excess court-fee paid by the appellant be refunded. Thereafter the office in its note dated 1.7.1997 has indicated that the court-fee had been paid by the appellant in denominations of Rs. 5000/- Rs. 2000/-Rs. 200/- Rs. 50/- and Rs. 4/- and court-fee of Rs. 5000/- may not be fractioned and the appellant may be directed to take refund of the entire court-fee and to pay court-fee of Rs. 4,146.75 paise afresh. This is how the matter has again been listed.
2. The course suggested by the office may not solve, the problem faced by the appellant. While hearing this matter regarding refund of court-fee, a doubt arose as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to pass any order for refund of court-fee under circumstances not contemplated in Sections 13,14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act. There is no dispute that the prayer for refund of excess court-fee paid and the subsequent order thereon are not contemplated in Sections 13,14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act which lay down specific provisions for refund of court-fee under certain circumstances. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that apart from the provisions contained in Sections 13,14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act, the Court has inherent power to direct refund of court-fee or excess court-fee in a fit case.
3. There is no dispute that in the present case, excess court-fee has been paid by mistake. The learned counsel has relied upon several decisions of different High Courts wherein it has been laid down that the Court has inherent power to direct refund of court-fee paid either by mistake of the party or on the basis of erroneous order passed by a Court. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decisions reported in AIR 1939 Lahore, 257 (Firm Hari Ram and Sons and Anr. v. H.O. Hav) : AIR 1940 Madras, 208 (Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri and Ors. v. Pattath Ramunni Marar and Ors.); AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat, 160 (Mahadeo Ganesh v. Keshav Khanderao and Ors.); AIR 1958 Punjab, 38 (Jawahar Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India and Ors.) : AIR 1960 Andhra Pradesh, 34 (In re. Dandamudi Sarojini Devi) and AIR 1968 Delhi, 248 (Court on its own motion v. K. S. Sethi). A perusal of these decisions indicates that the Court has inherent power to direct refund of court-fee or excess court-fee paid by mistake or under erroneous decision of a Court under circumstances not contemplated under Sections 13,14 and 15 of the Court-fees Act. There is no doubt that the Court has the power to direct for refund of excess court-fee which had obviously been paid by mistake. In above view of the matter, an appropriate Certificate may be issued by the office for refund of excess court-fee which has been paid by the appellant.