1. ' The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 32,960 and for the purposes of jurisdiction and court- fee valued the suit as follows : "(a) For recovery of damages at Rs, 82,800.
(b) For recovery of price paid Rs, 48,000.
(c) For recovery of interest at Rs, 2,160."
2. ' However, plaintiffs valued the reliefs for recovery of amount mentioned above separately for the purpose of court-fee and paid the court-fee in the total sum of Rs, 4,025. They however, subsequently made an application under section 13 of the Court Fees Act read with section 151, C. P.
3. C. Claiming that according to law they were liable to pay court-fee of Rs, 2,455, as they by mistake calculated the same on each relief separately although they were entitled to calculate the same on the total amount and accordingly prayed for refund of the excess amount of Rs, 1,570.
4. ' This application came up before Mr. Justice (now retired) Ghulam Rasul Shaikh and his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the same by the following short order passed on 6-4-1970.
5. "There is no provision in the Court Fees Act for refund of the amount as conceded by the learned counsel. I am afraid section 151, C. P. C. Cannot be invoked. Application is rejected."
6. ' Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the plaintiffs went up in Inter-Court Appeal, being L. P. A. No, 100 of 1970, which was allowed by the I judgment dated 24-9-1979.
7. ' It was observed by their Lordships of the Division Bench that the present case did not fall under the provisions of the Court Fees Act providing refund of the court-fees for this was a case of payment of excess court-fee by mistake, on plaint. However, after referred to Hirabai Burjorji Cowasji v. Fakir Mahmed Vali Mahmed Khoja (1), Chindombaram Chettiar (2), Province of Madras v. Kalavakuru Audemma and others (3) and Vishnuprasad Narandas Modi v. Narandas Mohanlal Modi (4) from the Indian jurisdiction, observed as follows :- "It is therefore observed that this view has been consistently taken by the Courts that apart from the cases where the Court Fees Act provides specifically for refund of excess court-fees under sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court is competent under section 151, C. P. C. To order refund in cases. {{TABLE}}
(1) where Court Fees Act applies,
(1) AIR 1927 Sind 192 (2) AIR 1934 Mad. 566
(3) AIR 1949 Mad. 895 (4) A 1 R 1950 Bom. 4 {{TABLE}}
(2) where is an excess payment by mistake, or
(3) where on account of mistake of a Court a party has been compelled to pay court-fees either wholly or in. Part."
8. "In the instant case also excess court-fee has been paid under a bona fide mistake, as section 17 of the said Act clearly prescribes as to how the amount of the court-fees is to be computed and due to inadvertence excess court-fee has been paid which ought to be returned to the party concerned. It would not serve the ends of justice if it is said that since in section 17 of the Court Fees Act there is no specific provision for refund of the excess court-fees cannot be ordered by the Court to be refunded."
9. ' And accordingly remanded the case to this Bench for decision of the application in accordance with law.
10. ' It is not disputed by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sind that the amount of court-fee paid by the plaintiffs was in excess by Rs, 1,570. It is also not questioned that the excess court-fee in this case was paid by mistake and so is also the finding of their Lordships of the Division Bench as quoted above. I may also refer to a decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Indu Bhusan Roy Choudhury v. Secretary of State (1). In this case Henderson, J., at page 708 of the report observed :- "I should certainly not be prepared to hold that the Courts have no jurisdiction to grant relief in suitable cases, though there may be some doubt as to the precise form which the relief ought to take. This matter was considered by the Madras High Court in case reported in 1 L R 55 Mad. 641 Thammyya Naidu v. Venkataramanarruna, AIR 1932 Mad.
438. In that case the petitioner had paid excess court-fees. The learned Judges held that it would be unjust and unreasonable for the High Court to refuse to assist him to recover them and grant him a certificate to the effect that excess court-fees had been paid leaving it to the revenue authorities to decide whether a refund should be made or not. With that decision I respectfully agree. I am not prepared to say that the particular form of certificate provided for in sections 13, 14 and 15, Court Fees Act, ought to be granted in cases which are altogether outside the scope of the Act. I should therefore be prepared to grant the petitioner a certificate to the effect that he ought to be granted a refund provided that he could persuade us that his petition has any merit in it."
11. ' In the same case of Nasim Ali, at page 708 observed :- "The present application admittedly is not covered by sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court Fees Act.
12. We are asked however to issue a certificate under the inherent power of the Court. The learned Senior Government pleader contends that the Court has no power to issue certificate apart from the provisions of the Court Fees Act. The reported cases however show that this Court as well as other High Courts have issued certificate under the inherent power of the Court in cases of Thammyya Naidu v. Venkataramanamrna 1932 Mad. 438=139 I C 131=55 Mad. 641=61 M L J 541 where excess court-fees have been paid by inadvertence=14 W R 49, 40 Cal, 365 and 52 (1) AIR 1935 Cal. 707 All 546, Gastaun G. C. v. Kmaki Nath, 1934 Cal. 615=152 I C 215=38 C W N 185. Where a litigant has made excess payments under an erroneous view of the provisions of the Court Fees Act : 55 Mad. 641=57 Mad. 542 Vijvalakashmi Arnim! v. Srinivasa Ayyangar 46 I C 271, Chandra Hari Singh v. Tipan Prosad Singh and 107 1 C 320 Muhammad Reza v. Rajballabh Nath Singh Ameeroonissa v. Woomaroodin Muhammad (1870) 14 W R 49. Where the Court has realized excess court-fees on an erroneous interpretation of the section of the Court Fees Act=36 C W N 190 Girish Chandra Mali v. Girish Chandra Dutta 107 1 C 825 and Sasi Bhutan Majumdar v. Manik Lal Chandra.
13. The principle underlying these cases seems to be that Government should not profit by the mistake of a litigant or of a Court as to the amount of court-fees payable under the Court Fees Act, and in cases of such mistake the Court should order refund for ends of justice. This is an intelligible principle. Government cannot reasonably object to refund the excess as it is not legitimately due under the statute."
14. ' The learned Judge further reasoned in the above cited case : "If the litigant is made to pay fee in excess of what he is liable to pay under the Statute, the Statute does not stand in the way of refunding such excess fees as it never authorised the receipt of such excess. In such cases the litigant has got the right to get a refund because the excess is his money and has by mistake or inadvertence passed into the hands of Government."
15. ' Now, therefore, the question is what order should be made: Court has no powers to directly order the Government to refund the amount of excess court-fees. In such to precedents Court issues certificate to the party who has paid excess court-fee to enable him to apply to the Revenue Authority for refund of the same.
16. ' I may here first refer to a decision of our own Court in Messrs British India Engineering Works, Karacki v. Messrs Globe Navigation Ltd., and 2 others (1) wherein my learned brother S. A. Nusrat, J., relying on Firm Hari Ram & Sons and another v. H.
0. Hay (2) in which reliance has been placed on a decision in Muhammad Sadiq All Khan v. All Abbas (3) and also on a decision of Madras High Court in the case of In re : Vendaranyaswami Derasthanam (4) held that : "In my humble opinion this last judgment adequately meets the situation inasmuch as in absence of any power to grant a certificate, as contemplated in sections 13, 14 and 15 of Court Fees Act, the safest course to be followed seems to be to grant declaration that excess court-fee was paid by the party, thus enabling him to move the Revenue authorities for the grant of refund."
17. ' I may also refer to a Division Bench decision of Lahore High Court in Jawala Singh and others v.
18. Ghulam and others (5) wherein it was held that where court-fee has been paid by a bona fide mistake the proper course is to grant to the party a certificate which will enable him to obtain refund from the Revenue Authority.
(1) PLD 1978 Kar. 375 (2) AIR 1939 Lah. 257
(3) AIR 1933 Oudh 170 (4) AIR 1942 Mad. 464
(5) AIR 1933 Lab. 351 Following the decision of their Lordships of the Division Bench that the plaintiffs have by mistake paid excess court-fee in the amount of Rs, 570 and that this Court under its inherent powers has jurisdiction to grant a certificate to that effect. I direct that a certificate to the above effect be issued to the plaintiffs to enable them to apply to the Revenue Authority for refund of the amount of excess court-fee paid by them.
19. Certificate issued. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.