( 1 ) THE Petitioner, Vijaya, Bank Ltd. , Mangalore, instituted a suit for recovery of a sum oi Rs. 3,30,245-07 together with interest thereon, and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 24, 768-25 on the plaint. Immediately after service of notice, the defendants appeared before the Court and consented for a decree being passed against them. Accordingly, a consent decree was made by the Court of the Civil Judge, Mandya. The learned Civil Judge, also made an order under S. 66 of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), for the refund of half the court- fee paid by the petitioner. the petitioner on the basis oi the said order applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya, who is the competent authority, for refund of the amount ordered by the Court. The Assistant commissioner refunded half of the, amount of court-fee paid by the petitioner, deducting from out of it an amount calculated at 10 per cent on the amount of which the Court had ordered refund in favour of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the deduction of 10 per cent ol the amount which the Court had ordered to be refunded to it. ( 3 ) SRI N. Mohandas Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the refund was ordered by the Court of the Civil judge Mandya under sub-sec. (b) of S. 66 of the Act. Chapter VII of the dered refund of half the amount of the court-fee paid by the petitioner on the plaint. The procedure to be followed for getting the refund is contained in S 75 of the Act It reads as follows :"75. (b) of S. 66 of the Act. Chapter VII of the dered refund of half the amount of the court-fee paid by the petitioner on the plaint. The procedure to be followed for getting the refund is contained in S 75 of the Act It reads as follows :"75. Deduction to be made:-Where allowance is made in this act for damaged or spoiled stamps, or where fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person by an order of Court, the Deputy Commissioner may, on the application of the person concerned pay to him the amount of fee or where damaged or spoiled stamps are produced, he may after satisfying himself abut their genuineness, in lieu thereof the same amount or value in stamps of the same or any other description, or if the applicant so desires, the same amount or value in money provided that in all cases where money is paid in cash, a deduciton 'hall be made of ten nave paise for each rupee or fraction thereof. No such deduction shall however be made where refund is claimed in respect of any fee paid in pursuance of any order of Court which has been varied or reversed in appeal" ( 4 ) IT is in accordance with S. 75 that the petitioner applied to the assistanl Commissioner, Mandva, for refund of half the amount of court- fee paid by it which was ordered to be refunded by the Court of the Civil judge, Mandya. The, Assistant Commissioner refunded the amount deducting, however, 10 per cent of the amount ordered to be refunded by the court. ( 5 ) SRI N. Mohandas Hegde submitted that the deduction of 10 per cent provided in S. 75 of the Act is applicable only to cases where refund is claimed in respect of damaged or spoiled stamps, and that the said provision has no application whatsoever in regard to cases where refund is required to be made in pursuance of the orders of the Courts. ( 6 ) THE language employed in sub-sec. (1) of S. 63 and Ss. ( 6 ) THE language employed in sub-sec. (1) of S. 63 and Ss. 64, 65 and 66 of the Act, makes it clear that when the conditions specified in those sections are satisfied, the Court is required to make an appropriate order for refund of the entire or a portion of the court-fee paid by the person concerned depending upon the relevant provisions under which refund is required to be ordered. So far as the Court is concerned, it will have done its duty when it makes an order for refund of the whole or a portion of the amount of court-fee in accordance with the relevant provisions of the act. In cases falling under S. 66, the Court is required to order refund of half the court-fee paid. It has no discretion to made an order for refund of any amuont lower than half the amount of court-fee paid if the case falls under Section 66 of the Act. ( 7 ) SRI Hegde contended that if the Court's order entitles the petitioner to receive half the amount of court-fee paid by it, it will not be competent to the Assistant commissioner, whose duty it is to give effect to that order, to deduct any portion of the said amount. But for the express language contained in S. 75 of the Act, I would have had no hesitation in accepting this contention. What is the form in which refund should be made, what is the procedure to be followed in regard to the refund, and what is the exact amount to be refunded in pursuance of an order of the court, are what are regulated by S. 75 of the Act. If the said section is analysed, it "will be clear that the refund has to be made by the Deputy commissioner, whose powers are exercised by the Assistant Commissioner, in this case. Refund is contemplated in the following two types of cases, viz. : (1) Where allowance is made in the Act for damaged or spoiled stamps; and (2) Where the fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person by an order of the Court. ( 8 ) A person entitled to refund has to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for refund. : (1) Where allowance is made in the Act for damaged or spoiled stamps; and (2) Where the fee already paid is directed to be refunded to any person by an order of the Court. ( 8 ) A person entitled to refund has to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for refund. In case where refund is claimed on the ground that the stamps are damaged or spoiled, the Deputy Commissioner has to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the stamps. If he is satisfied about the genuineness of the stamps alleged to have been damaged or spoiled, the refund may be made either in the form of stamps of the same value or if the applicant sodesires to refund the value of the same in cash. So far as the refund to be made in pursuance of the order of a Court is concerned, the Deputy-Commissioner has to make the refund only in cash. ( 9 ) SEC. 75 of the Act further provides that in all cases where money is paid in cash, a deduction shall be made of ten maye -paise for each rupee or fraction thereof. The expression "in all cases where the money is paid in cash ", in the context in which it has been employed, makes it difficult to restrict the scope of deduction to only such of the cases where cash refund is claimed in respect of damaged or spoiled stamps. The concluding portion of S. 75 lends considerable asistance in construing the expression " in all cases where the money is paid in cash" The concluding portion of that section provides that no such deduction shall however, be made where refund is claimed in respect of any fees paid in pursuance of an order of Court which has been varied or reversed in appeal. the dear effect of the same is that in one type of cases where refund Is ordered by the Court, no deduction of 10 per cent is warranted. The eases contemplated are those where the person has paid the court-fee in pursuance of an order of the Court, which order having been subsequently varied or reversed in appeal. the dear effect of the same is that in one type of cases where refund Is ordered by the Court, no deduction of 10 per cent is warranted. The eases contemplated are those where the person has paid the court-fee in pursuance of an order of the Court, which order having been subsequently varied or reversed in appeal. the person who has paid the court-fee as per the direction of the court, has become entitled to refund of the same It is only in this category of cases where refund is ordered by the Court that a deduction of 10 percent is not warranted. Its clear effect is thai in other case where refund is ordered by the Court, a deduction of 10 per cent contemplated by the earlier part of S. 75 is warranted. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya, was right in making a deduction of 10 per cent of half the amount of court-fee which the Court of the Civil Judge, Mandya, had directed to be refunded to, the petitioner. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with this case, I may refer to one decision of the calcutta High Court, on which Sri N. Mohandas Hegde placed reliance, viz. , Tarachand Ghnnshyamdas v. State of W. B. AIR. 1955 Cal. 258. He invited my attention to para 14 of the judgment wherein their Lordships of the Calcutta High court have held that where a certificate is issued on a finding of over-payment, its effect is not recommendatory but mandatory. Their lordships construing the scope of Ss 13, 14 and 15 held that those provisions art not recommendatory but mandatory in character. Those provisions are analogous in some respects to Ss. 63 to G5 of the Act. Their Lordships were not dealing with any provision pertaining to the refund smilar to S. 75, which I am required to contrue in tins case. Hence, that decision is not of any assistance fot deciding the question that has arisen for consideration in the present writ petition ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above this writ petition falls and is dismissed No costs. --- *** --- .