Judgment C.P.SINHA, J. 1. This is an application made by the plaintiff to an action, under section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act with a prayer that relief he granted to the petitioner against the order of the trial court admitting certain documents into evidence after impounding those documents and after having collected the stamp duty and the penalty on those documents. 2. The court below by its order dated the 24th of January 1947 held that certain documents, which were proposed to be put in evidence, amounted to leases and that as such they were not properly stamped. Those documents were thereupon impounded and the Court ordered that those documents could not be taken into evidence until the proper stamp duty and the penalty were paid in respect of each of those documents. The petitioner came to this Court against that order in Civil Revision No. 52 of 1947, but that application was rejected by the order of this Court dated the 16th January, 1948. While dismissing that application, it was observed that section 61 in terms referred only to cases where a Court had made an order admitting an instrument into evidence as duly stamped or as not requiring stamp or upon payment of duty and penalty under sec. 35and that, as the documents had not till then been admitted into evidence, section 61 had no application. It was further observed that at a later stage, if the penalty was paid and the documents were admitted, there might possibly be some scope for consideration under section 61. It appears that, after the application to this Court was rejected, the petitioner paid the stamp duty and the penalty asked for by the Court upon which the documents were admitted into evidence and, after having paid the duty and the penalty, the petitioner has now filed this application under section 61 of the Stamp Act for refund of the excess stamp duty and, penalty paid by the petitioner. 3. In my opinion, section 61 has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. Sec. 61 is headed as follows: "Revision of certain decisions of Courts regarding the sufficiency of stamps". 3. In my opinion, section 61 has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. Sec. 61 is headed as follows: "Revision of certain decisions of Courts regarding the sufficiency of stamps". This means that in certain cases where the sufficiency of the stamps as levied by the Court, is in question, that can be revised by the Court to which an appeal lies or references are made by the first Court. The heading, therefore, quite clearly suggests that this section refers only to cases where insufficient duty or insufficient penalty has been paid. Sec. 61, clause (1) mentions that the appellate Court or the court to which reference lies from the first Court which had imposed the stamp duty or the penalty might of its own motion or on the application of the Collector take such order into consideration. The appellate Court or the Court of reference can revise the order under this section only upon the application of the Collector or of its own motion. The private party who has paid the duty or the penalty has no locus standi to make an application. This also suggests that this section has no application when refund of the excess duty or penalty is asked for. Now section 61, clause (2) says that, if such Court, meaning thereby the appellate Court or the Court of reference, after such consideration, that is to say, after consideration as mentioned in sub-section (1), is of the opinion that either the instrument has been admitted without due stamp duty or penalty under sec. 35 or that the instrument required payment of a Higher duty and penalty than those paid, such Court might record a declaration to that effect and determine the amount of duty with which such instrument was chargeable. This sub-section, therefore, refers back to the provisions of subsection (1) and therefore these two subsections (1) and (2) must be read together. If they are so read, it is clear that (1) where the instrument has been admitted without payment of duty or penalty and (2) where less duty or penalty has been paid and more should have been paid, the appellate Court or the Court of reference should record a declaration to that effect and determine the proper duty or penalty to be paid upon such an instrument. After this is done, under sub-clause (3) of the section that Court has to send a copy of the declaration to the Collector for suitable action as provided for by sub-section (4) of the section. This section therefore cannot refer to the refund of any stamp duty which might have been paid in excess by the person tendering the instrument into evidence. Mr. De on behalf of the petitioner contends that, if there is power in the Court of appeal or in the Court of reference to levy a higher stamp duty or penalty, then it must also be within its power to order refund if any excess payment has been made. The short answer to that contention is that the party aggrieved can have his remedy by way of an appeal or revision only if the statute provides the same and such right cannot be inferred. I find, however, that the Stamp Act does provide a remedy in case a higher stamp duty or penalty has been paid, and that provision is to be found in sec. 45 of the Act. The view which I take is also in consonance with the view of the learned authors of the Indian Stamp Act, 5th edition, by Mulla and Pratt at page 155. Their view is thus stated: "The sole object of this section is the protection of revenue and it does not affect the provisions of section 36........The section only refers to cases of insufficeint duty and penalty. If excess duty or penalty has been levied the only remedy is by application to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sec. 45 within three months." Mr. De also contends that his client was misled by the order of this Court already mentioned, but I see no justification for that contention either. Meredith J., with whom Agarwala, C. J. concurred, only said that at a later stage, after the penalty was paid, possibly there might be some scope for consideration under section 61. De also contends that his client was misled by the order of this Court already mentioned, but I see no justification for that contention either. Meredith J., with whom Agarwala, C. J. concurred, only said that at a later stage, after the penalty was paid, possibly there might be some scope for consideration under section 61. As I have already indicated, section 61 empowers the appellate Court or the Court of reference to consider the sufficiency of stamp duty paid or the penalty imposed after the document has been taken into evidence and, therefore, his Lordship did not say anything more than what was contained in the section itself and it cannot be said that by that judgment the petitioner was held entitled to apply for refund under this section. The language of the section is clear that it should not have given any reason to the petitioner to believe that that section provided any remedy in case excess payment of stamp duty or penalty has been made by the petitioner. Even if it be a fact that by that judgment the petitioner was led into the belief that he had his remedies under this section, that would not affect the provisions of the section itself. In my judgment, section 61 of the Stamp Act, under which the present application has been made, has got no application, and this Court cannot give any relief to the petitioner if he has paid any excess stamp duty or penalty. 4 I would accordingly dismiss this application with costs to the State of Bihar, which I fix at two gold mohurs as the hearing fee. DAS, J. 5 I agree.