THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.3283 of 20009 Date of Order: 29-07-2011 Between: 1. Gudiseva Anjamma and another ..Petitioners and 1. Katakam Subba Rao and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3283 of 2009 Oral order: Petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in OSGL No.497, dated 02-03-2009 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) CPC filed the present revision. Petitioners/plaintiffs for recovery of rents due on 15-01-2002, 15-01-2003, 15-01-2004, 15-01-2005 and 15-01-2006 presented the plaint before the Court on 07-05-2008 and paid the Court fee of Rs.1,966/-. On return of the same on 29-09-2008 it was represented on 13-10-2008 duly complying the objections raised. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present plaint valuing the suit for the purpose of court fee at Rs.36,000/- stating that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash through G.Muralidar which was received on 16-12-2006 and an amount of Rs.14,000/- ws paid to the first plaintiff on 16-10-2008 leaving the balance towards arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.13,577/- and arrears of rent are not claimed and suit is confined to the value of Rs.36,000/- only payable for Fasli 1415 (2005-2006). On return of the plaint for payment of proper court fee it was represented that on earlier filing suit, defendant No.1 got leaked the demand for arrears came to his house and paid Rs.14,000/- towards arrears of rent and the balance of arrear rents was waived. Hence, a fresh plaint for recovery of rents due on 15-01-2006 was filed separately in continuation of the plaint filed on 07-05-2007 and the court fee paid earlier shall be adjusted, as the deposit of court fee is available in the court. Therefore, no additional court fees need to be paid under Section 63 of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. On rejection of the plaint for non-payment of court fee and non-disclosure of cause of action the present revision is filed. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 to adjust the Court fee paid in the earlier plaint, which was returned, but the same has not been represented. As it is showing different cause of action another plaint was presented. As the earlier cause of action is vanished as per the petitioners’ own statement, they are not entitled to adjust the court fee paid. At the most they can seek refund of the court fee paid earlier. Therefore, rejection order passed by the lower court rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court and non-disclosure of cause of action do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 29-07-2011 Murthy