^ •^?^?'''';;^'®::%;^:®^iiliii'<%jSS^ y^iiSiaiisiiSsSix^^ss t' HIGHCOURTOFCMHATTSSGARH:Blt.ASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bSe Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh,J. Civil Revision No. 129 of 2006 ADplicant : Sankhala Tradin&, Pm Non-^Bplscant Kamlesh, son of Late Samir Mal Jain, aged 31 years, Main Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (CG) Versus Non^fiBlicant Ajit Tex, Proprietor P. Umendra AppJicant Chandra Jain,! resident of Balaji Ward, Jagdalpu]r, District Bastar (CG) CiviirevisionunderSection1156fC.P.C. Present: •' ::• •1 ... ' . ,.,.:,'. .'-1: /:l.'ll ShriH.B.^arwal,SeniorAdvocatewithiShriPankajAgarwal, counsel for the appEicant. J Shri IVianqj Paran]pe,counse! fornon-app!icant. ORALORDER 1 (Passedon 15.11.2007)i Heardonl.A.No.1489/2006, which is jan application under Section5and14ofUmitationActfordelayinfiljngtherevis^ (2) Notopposed. (3) Application is allowed. Delay in fling the revision is condoned. (4) Heardonadmission. (5) The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the 131 Addjtional D^ miscellaneouscivilcaseNoJ 0/2005, wherebytheprayer^^^^^^^o^ applicanVpiaintiff for refund of the court fees paid by him along with the piaint in an earlier suit (civii suit No.2-B/2004)which was rejected for non-compliance of Order-6 Ruie-15 sub-ruie^ (^ turneddown. (6) Sectioh 13 of the Court Fees Act reads gs under: 8BJ91Mill%S®S%%Bi?®SIJBRJBJII iliilSSilSSBi§l%Slli8U ::<vl ^. ;^. ''Refund of fee paid on mernorandum of^a^^^ lfanappea{<)rp}aJnt,v^Schhasteen^^^r^ lower Court on any of the grounds mentioned ih the CodeofCivilPr6cedlure,isorderedt6beReceived,or ifasuitisremandedinappea?,onan^o^^^^^^^ mentloned in section 351 of the same Code, for a second dedsipn by the iower Court, the Appellate Cpurt shail grant to the appeifant a | certificate, authorizing him to receive backfromthe Collector fuil amount of fee paid on the memorandum,^^^^o appeai: Provided that; if in, the case of a| remand in appeal, the order of remand shalS not cover the whoSe of the subject--iriatter of the suif, the certificate so granted shall not authorize the appellant to receive back more than so much fee aswouldihave^^^^^^^^b originaily payabie on the part or parts of si|ichsubject- matter m respect whereof the suit | has been remanded". I (7) In view ofthe fact that appiicanVpiaintiif had fiied a fresh^^^^^^s and did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 22.10.20Q5 passed in an earliersuit (civii suit No.2-B/2004) rejecting the piaint for non-dompiiance of Order-6 Rule-15 sub-rule | (4) of C.P.C the apptication underSection 13 of Court fees Act, 1870 wouid not iie in a subsequent suit. (8) In view of the above, there is no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge IPriya