JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore and I.B. Singh, Members - This is a review application against the order dated 27-10-1979 passed by our learned predecessor late Sri H.N. Agarwal, member, rejecting revision application no. 64 of 1970-71/Badaun against order of learned Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand division dated 14-9-1970 rejecting application dated 4-5-1970 that refund of Rs. 532.50 excess court fees paid, on the ground that no refund of the court fee can be ordered as he had not filed appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It was argued that the learned member deciding the revision did not consider the provisions of Section 151 of C.P.C. which are amply applicable to the matters of refund of excess court fee paid and reliance has been placed on Arjuna Govinda v. Amrita Keshiba & others, A.I.R. 1956 Nag. p. 281 and Vishnuprasad Karandas Modi v. Narandas Mohanlal Modi, A.I.R. 1950 Bom. p. 4 and In re Vedaranyswami Devasthanan represented by Managing Trustee, Sri La Sri Subramania Pandora Sannodhi, A.I.R 1942 Mad. p. 464. 4. It was argued in reply that the revision was dismissed on 27-10-1979 and this revision application was filed on 29-11-1979 and this revision therefore it is time barred. It was further argued that the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. are not applicable to the present case for grant of refund of the alleged excess court fee paid. It.has not been proved that actually excess court fee was paid, further more the order was appealable and no appeal was filed, therefore, Section 151 of the C.P.C. was rightly not applied by the learned Additional Commissioner and by the Board in the impugned order: Reliance has been placed on Raj Deo Singh v. Kr. Shambhoo Krishna Naraina, 1960 A.L.J. p. 124. 5. The review application is dated 29-11-1979, hence it is 3 days beyond time as only 30 days limitation regarding review applications is applicable as has been held in Ram Sewak v. Narain Dutt. Review no. 94 of 1977-78 Hamirpur decided by one of us Sri I.B. Singh on 27-3-1980. Application for copy of the order dated 27-10-1979 was moved on 26-11-1979 when the limitation was expiring which was ready on 26-2-1980 but it was on 6-3-1980 and was filed on 13-3-1980. Review no. 94 of 1977-78 Hamirpur decided by one of us Sri I.B. Singh on 27-3-1980. Application for copy of the order dated 27-10-1979 was moved on 26-11-1979 when the limitation was expiring which was ready on 26-2-1980 but it was on 6-3-1980 and was filed on 13-3-1980. Therefore too the review application was filed beyond 30 days from the date of the order. Hence it is beyond limitation and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner, by his order dated 17-4-1963 has ordered the applicant then appellant in first appeal to pay a court fee of Rs. 534.50. The first impugned order will be deemed to have been passed under Section 6-A of Act No. VII of 1870 in its application to U.P. as amended from time to time. Its Section 6-A makes such orders appealable as if it were an order appealable under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Its sub-section 4 runs as follows :- Section 6-A (4) "If such order is varied or reversed in appeal, the appellate court shall, if the deficiency has been made good before the appeal is decided, grant to the appellant a certificate, authorizing him to receive back from the Collector such am aunt as is determined by the appellate court to have been paid in excess of the proper court fee." 7. It appears that no appeal was filed by the applicant under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act, therefore, the application of Section 151 of the C.P.C. was rightly refused. Because it is settled principle of law that if the statute provides any remedy it has to be resorted to and the provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. in such cases cannot be allowed to be availed. 8. In A.I.R. 1956 Nagpur page 281 Supra it was that held : - "In the absence of a contrary intention in the amending act the fee payable on memorandum of appeal is according to the Court fees Act in force on the date of the presentation of the plaint anti not according to the act subsequently enhancing the fees". This ruling is not applicable in any way to the present case as it has not been shown and proved that the alleged enhanced court fee was charged due to any amendment in the court fees Act. 9. This ruling is not applicable in any way to the present case as it has not been shown and proved that the alleged enhanced court fee was charged due to any amendment in the court fees Act. 9. In A.I.R. 1950 Bombay page 4 (Supra). It was held as follows : - "Even in eases not covered by Sections 13, 14 & 15 court fees Act, the Court can under Section 151, C.P.C. order refund of court fees paid in excess either by mistake, inadvertance or oversight. Where the payment of excessive court fees was due to the fact that under the earlier decisions of the court suits for partition and appeals arising there from were wrongly treated as failing under Section 7(v) court fees Act, it would be open to the court to grant a certificate to the appellant entitling him to a refund of the court-fees amount paid by hi in excess" 10. In A.I.R. 1942 Madras page 464 (Supra). It was held as follows : - "Although there is no specific provision in the court fees Act, which empowers the court to order a refund, but the court may, ex-debito go into these questions, declare that any particular plaint or memorandum of appeal was over-valued and then leave the matter to the revenue authorities for the grant of a refund in accordance with the declaration given by the High Court." 11. The above two rulings lay down that if the excess court fees has been paid either due to prevalence of wrong and mistaken view or it was erroneously paid under the order of the High Court or orders of courts sub-ordinate to it the High Court can make a declaration to that effect to assist the parties to recover the excess court fees so paid but in none of these cases excess court fees was paid in the manner paid in the present case wherein appeal was provided which was not availed of, therefore, these rulings are not helpful to the applicant. The impugned order passed by the Board was highly justified and the revision was rightly rejected. This review application has got no force and is liable to be rejected. 12. In view of the above, this review application is hereby rejected.