JUDGMENT-This is a suit which the plaintiffs had filed to recover possession of a motor truck which they had given on hire purchase to defendant No. 1, defendant No.2 being the guarantor under the hire purchase agreement relating thereto. The defendants thereafter took out a third party notice against M/s Hind Transport Co. and Shantilal Mangaldas claiming that the hire purchase agreement had been entered into at the instance of the said third parties on the clear undertaking that all the liabilities and obligations under the hire purchase agreement would be on account of the third parties, and the third parties were, therefore, liable to indemnify the defendants against the plaintiffs' claim in suit. The third party notice was taken out under the procedure prescribed in rule 151 of the Rules of this Court (O.S.) and the defendants have paid a court-fee of Rs. 2,740 on their claim against the third parties which was the subject-matter of the third party proceedings in the present suit. When the suit came up for hearing before me on July 30, 1973, the plaintiffs applied for amendment praying that both the third parties be joined as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to the suit, and that application was granted by me. The suit was, however, settled and a decree was passed by me by consent of parties on the same day. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter applied for withdrawal of the third party notice as settled out of Court, and also applied for refund of 2/3rds of the court-fees paid by them on the third party notice. The order for withdrawal of the third party notice was made by me on that very day, but I adjourned the matter for argument on the question of refund of court-fees about which I entertained some doubt. 2. The matter was thereafter argued before me yesterday on the question of refund of court-fees. Mr. N. A. Shah on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon rule 151 (3) of the Rules of this Court (O.S.) which provides that the third party shall, as from the date of service upon him of the notice, be a party to the suit, with the same rights in respect of his defence against any claim made against him or otherwise, as if he had been duly sued in the ordinary way by the defendant. On the strength of that Rule, Mr. N. A. Shah contended that the proceedings as between the defendants and the third parties in the present case must be regarded as a suit and the third party notice itself should be regarded as a plaint, and the defendants would, therefore, be entitled to claim refund of 2/3rd of the court· fees paid on the third party notice under the notification issued by the State Government under sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The said notification permits such refund to be granted in the case of a suit which is withdrawn as settled out of Court. By way of a precedent, Mr. N. A. Shah also sought to rely on an order passed by my brother Tulzapurkar in The New India Rayon Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamilal Shankerbhai Patel1 granting refund of 2/3rd of the court-fees in respect of a third party notice which was dis. missed for want of prosecution. The said order is, however, not a speaking order and the point which I have been called upon to consider does not seem to have been argued before the learned Judge. The said ruling is, therefore, of no assistance to me for the purpose of deciding the present application, having regard particularly to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the State Trading Corporation's case to which I will presently refer. 3. In Support of his contention, Mr. N. A. Shah also relied on two old decisions of this Court in the cases of Weld and Co. v. Sher Mahomed2 and Karim Elahi v. Sher Ahmed3, but in view of the very recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Trading Corp. v. Ironside Ltd.4 it is really unnecessary for me to refer to any earlier decision on the subject. In the State Trading Corporation's case the question which arose was whether the court· fees were leviable on a third party notice The nature of the proceedings initiated by the third party notice were, therefore, exhaustively considered in the judgment in that case. In the State Trading Corporation's case the question which arose was whether the court· fees were leviable on a third party notice The nature of the proceedings initiated by the third party notice were, therefore, exhaustively considered in the judgment in that case. It was held by the Division Bench in the said case (at p. 650) that a third party notice serves two purposes viz., it is an intimation to the third party that a claim has been made against him by the defendant, and it also serves the purpose of a plaint. After considering some earlier decisions on the point, including the decision in the case of Weld and Co. v. Sher Mahomed relied upon by Mr. Shah, it was, however, held (at p. 652) that the fiction created by sub rule (3) of rule 151 of the Rules of this Court on the Original Side by which a third party proceeding is treated as a suit, had been enacted for a limited purpose viz., to give the third party full opportunity to defend himself, and that there was nothing in that Rule which suggested that a third party notice was to be treated as a plaint for all purposes. It was further observed that a third party proceeding was also proceeding in the' suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and was, therefore, "not a plaint at least for the purposes of the Court Fees Act." The Division Bench then proceeded to consider whether court· fees would be leviable on a third party notice as an application made to the Court and observed (at pp. 652.653) that, being a process issued by the Court, a third party notice was not itself an application to the Court but the praecipe, along with which a draft of the third party notice was sent to the Prothonotary for approval under the Rules of the Court was liable to court· fees as an application made to the Court to obtain the reliefs specified in the third party notice. It was held that the praecipe, as an application, was liable to court· fees under Article 7 in Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, since the reliefs claimed from the third party in the said case were capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss. It was held that the praecipe, as an application, was liable to court· fees under Article 7 in Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, since the reliefs claimed from the third party in the said case were capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in the State Trading Corporation's case which is binding upon me, I, therefore, hold that the third party notice is not a plaint for the purpose of the court· fees Act and that the court· fees that have been paid by the defendants in the present case in respect of their claim against the third parties has been paid by them on the praecipe as an application to obtain the relief claimed in the third party notice. A claim for refund of court fees must be founded on some express provision having statutory force. There is no provision either in the Bombay Court Fees Act, or in any notification issued by the State Government thereunder, under which a refund could be claimed in the case of such an application. The defendants' claim to refund must, therefore, be rejected. It is true that, under rule 154 of the Rules of this Court (O.S.), where the liability of the third party is established, a decree can be passed against him in favour of the defendant giving the notice and, logically, there is, therefore, no reason why a third party proceeding should be treated differently from a suit in the matter of refund of court-fees. I am, however, bound to interpret statutory provisions as they exist. In the absence of any express provision providing for refund of court-lees in a case like the present one, I am powerless to grant the refund applied for by Mr. N. A. Shah and his application for refund must, therefore, be rejected. Solicitors for defendants-Amarchand & Mangaldas. Solicitors for third party-Bilawala & Co. Application rejected.