^j^^l—^- ^tt:at.a. ^: ^x' ^ \i^ % W^i li- I 1 i iu-i < HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SmgleBench: Hon'bleShriDiJipRaosahebDeshmukh^ Cjvil Revision No. 130 of2006 ADplicant : Sankhala Brothers, Proprietor Non-appHcant MunnaSal Jain, son of Late Sagar Mal Jain, aged 55 years, Main Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Versus No&3Ki8li£ant Ajit Tex, Proprietor P. Umendra Applrcant Chandra Ja<n, resident of Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Civil revjsjon under Section 115 ofC.P.C. Present: Shri H.B. Agarwai, Senior Advocate withiShri Pankaj Agarwal, counsel forthe app!icant. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for non-applicant. ORALORDER (Passedon 15.11.2007) Heardoni.A.No.1490/2006. which isi an application under Section 5 and 14 ofLimitatjon Act fordeiay in filing the revision. (2) . Not opposed. (3) Application is ailowed. pelay in fiing the revision is condoned. (4) Heard on admission. (5) The appiicant is aggrieved by an order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the JJ!rd Addjtiona! District Judge, Jagdalpur (CG) in miscelianeous civif case No.9/2005, whereby the prayer of the appIicanVplaintiffforrefund of the court fees paid by himalong with the plaint in an eariier suit (civil suit No.4-8/2004) which was rejected for non-compiiance of Order-6 Rule-15 sub-rule (4) of C.P.C. was turneddown. (6) Section 13 of the Court Fees Act reads as under:- ^ ^ K":" w~ ^ '^y :y: ^MSSSSVSWSSi SllifllSJM -^- ^.., "Refund of fee paid on memorandum of appeal.- If an appeai or pjaint, which has been rejected by the lcwer Courton any ofthe grounds mentioned in the Code of Ciyil Procedure; is ordered to be received, or ifasuitisremanded in appeaf, on any ofthe grounds mentioned in section 351 of tne same Code, for a second dedsion by the lower Court, the Appellate Court shalf grant fo the appelianf a certificate, authorjzing him to receive back from the Co21ector the fuli amount of fee paid on the memorandym . of appeal: Provided that, if in, the case of airemand in appoat, the order of remand shail not cover the whole 6f the subject-matter of the suit, the certificate so granted shalj not authorize the appellant; to receive back more than so much fee as wouid have been origlnally payable on the part or parts of such subject- matter in respect whereof the sujt has been remanded". (7) In view of the fact that appljcanVplaintiff had fiied^^^^a^ and did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 22,10.2005 passed in an earliersuit(civi!suitNo.4-B/2004)rej non-compiiance of Order-6 Rufe-15 sub-ruie (4) of C.P.C the application under Section 13 of Court fees Act, 1870 would not lie in a subsequentsuit. (8) In view ofthe above, there is no merit in this revision which is accordinglydismissed. DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge