Judgment:
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.S.SR.No.10918 of 2012 dated 14.8.2012 insofar as refusal to return the Court-fee wrongly paid by the Petitioner.)
1. The Petitioner-Bank presented a Plaint before the District Court, Tirunelveli, against the Respondents for recovery of Rs.11,40,615/- and Court fee of Rs.85,548/- was paid. Since the claim in the Plaint was above Rs.10,00,000/- the District Court returned the Plaint by stating that how the Suit is maintainable before the District Court since separate Debt Recovery Tribunal is available. Afterwards, the Plaint was re-presented with an endorsement by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that since it is a Suit for recovery of money, based on a pronote and not on a mortgage, the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993, is not applicable and that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction and the Suit may be taken on file. The District Court again returned the Plaint by putting the same query. Hence, the Petitioner preferred another application in proper forum and presented the same before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and the same was entertained by the Tribunal.
2. Afterwards, the Petitioner filed an application along with the returned Plaint with a prayer requesting the Court to refund the Court-fee of Rs.85,548/- But the learned Principal District Judge has returned the Plaint by stating that the entire records were kept by the Court for the purpose of Court-fee refund and the Bank is requested to re-present the Plaint before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and to obtain the refund of excess Court-fee from the Tribunal. Then the Petitioner re-presented the Plaint before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, but the same was returned along with the connected Documents stating that O.A. should be filed as per prescribed format of Recovery of Debts Due to the Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993, along with requisite Court-fee. Hence, the Petitioner paid Rs.14,000/- by means of Demand Draft to the Debt Recovery Tribunal towards Court fee as per Rules and the present Plaint was returned by the said Tribunal.
3. Mr. D. Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation act, 1955, the Court in which the Suit was filed inadvertently, has to direct the refund of Court Fee. Section 70 of the Court Fees Act reads thus:
“70. Refund of fee paid by mistake or inadvertence. The fee paid by mistake or inadvertence shall be ordered to be refundend.”
4. The learned Counsel also in support of his contention placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in Zahoorunnissa Begum Sahiba v. T. Mohammed Ali Sahib, 1962 (1) MLJ 331, and is held as under:
“Section 70, which is mandatory in form directs a refund of Court-fee whenever it is paid by mistake or inadvertence. Being a beneficial provision there is no warrant for restricting it to mistakes other than mistakes of procedure. Mr. Ramanujam who supports the order of the learned District Munsif contends that the mistake contemplated in the section would only be that which arises as a result of, for example, miscalculation of Court-fee, that is, a mistake in the payment of the Court-fee itself. But the section is framed in much wider terms. It says “Wherever Court-fee is paid by mistake it shall be refunded”. A mistake which arises as a result of the adoption of an erroneous procedure as in the present case with the consequent payment of a Court-fee appropriate to the procedure adopted will in my view come within the ambit of the section.”
5. In yet another decision of this Court N. Rangaswami Naidu v. Narayanan Naicker, 1980 TLNJ 398, it is held is follows:
“The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this connection relies upon 1923 I, King Bench, page 480 and contends that the word “inadvertence” indicates an unintentional act or omission as distinguished from an intentional act or omission. The word “inadvertence” has also been treated as substantially equivalent to the words “careless” or negligent”. But the quotation from Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary shows yet another totally different meaning and it is this: “There is a difference between them, as between inadvertency and deliberation, between surprise and set purpose”. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Volume 3, pages 1327 & 1328, says that “inadvertence means the opposite of deliberate action and that doer never really meant to do what he did and he was not aware of what he was doing. Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume 20, pages 376-377, the word “inadvertence” is defined as the quality of being inadvertent, lack of heedfulness or attentiveness, inattention; negligence, an effect of inattention, a result of carelessness, an oversight, mistake or fault from negligence. In Words and Phrases, Legally Defined, Second Edition, Volume 3, page 28, reference is made to Re Jackson & Co. Ltd., 1899 (1) CH. 348.”
6. In the above said decision, this Court has elaborately dealt with the meaning of the term “inadvertence”. In the other decision in the case of Zahoorunnissa Begum Sahiba v. T. Mohammed Ali Shaib, 1962 (1) MLJ 331, this Court has directed refund of Court-fee on the Plaint which was presented mistakenly.
7. Since the Suit originally was filed before the District Court, Tirunelveli, that Court is duty bound to order refund of Court-fee. As far as Debt Recovery Tribunal is concerned, it is governed by self-contained statute. So the Principal District Court ought to order refund of the Court-fee. In such view of this matter, the prayer to refund the Court-fee has to be ordered.
8. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli is directed to order refund of Court-fee under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, to the Petitioner as per the Rules. No costs.
The Registry is directed to return the Plaint filed by the Petitioner along with Court Fee Stamps to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on proper acknowledgment.