MALIMATH, CJ. ( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 26611and83 filed by the appellant having been dismissed, the appellant presented this appeal to this court under S. 4 of the Karnataka High court Act, 1961, along with an application for condonation of delay in pre ferring the appeal. We reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently, reject the appeal as barred by limitation. ( 2 ) SRI M. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, prayed that we should make a direction for refund of half the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in support of his prayer, he relied on sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), which reads as follows: "where a memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation, one hall of the fee shall be refunded " qn the plain language of sub-ssc (2) of S. 63, it is obvious that the appellant has become entitled to the refund of one-half of the court fee paid on ths memorandum of appeal, the same having been rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law limitation. ( 3 ) SRI M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice and appeared for the State in this case, the interest of the State being involved, submitted that the appellant would not be entitled to the refund of one- half of the court fee paid by him on the memorandum of appeal He invited our attention to the decision of this Court reported V. K. Narasimhan v. Union of India (1 ). It was a case in which the question of refund of court fees under S. 64 of the Act, was considered. Sub-sec. (1) of 3. It was a case in which the question of refund of court fees under S. 64 of the Act, was considered. Sub-sec. (1) of 3. 64 of the Act, which was considered (in that case, provides that where a plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for a fresh decision by the lower Court, the Court making the order or remanding the appeal shall, where the whole decree is revorsed and the suit is remanded and may in other cases direct the refund to the appellant and refund the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal; also on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate court. The learned Judges, who decided the said case, held that a writ petition cannot be regarded as a suit and that, therefore, when an order of remand is made in a writ appeal, it is not possible to take the, view that a suit is remanded for a fresh decision in order to attract the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 64 of the Act. This view was taken having regard to the fact that in sub-sec. (1) of S. 64, the word 'suit' is found. It is also necessary to point out that what is contem plated is remand to the lower Court when a Division Bench of this Court remits a case for fresh disposal to a learned single Judge, it does not remand the case to the lower Court, as it is impossible to take the view that the Court presided over by the learned single Judge, is one Iower to thq Court presided over by the Division Bench. Hence, the decision relied upon by Shri Achar, which bears on the interpretation of s. 64 of the Act, cannot be pressed is - to service for the purpose of interpreting sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act the word 'suit' has not been used in sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act. Half the court fee becomes refundable as provided in sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act the word 'suit' has not been used in sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the Act. Half the court fee becomes refundable as provided in sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 where a memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation It is not disputed that the appeal has been rejected in this case on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the law of limitation. ( 4 ) THE only question for our consideration is, whether the rejection in this case is of the memorandum of appeal. It is no doubt true that clauso (sa) of Art. 11 of Sch. II to the Act, describes the memorandum of appeal as an appeal petition to the High Court from an original judgment, decree or order of a single Judge in respect of which court fee of Rs. 100 has been prescribed. In sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 the expression used is "memorandum of appeal". In our opinion, the expression "appeal petition" used in the Schedule conveys the same meaning as the expression "memorandum of appeal" used in sub-sec. (2) of S. 63 of the act. In the writ Proceedings Rules lamed by the High Court it is provided that every writ appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his Advocate as per Form No. 5 appended to the rules. It is, therefore, clear that the appeal memo described by the expression "memorandum of appeal" in sub- sec. (2) of S. 63 conveys the same meaning as "appeal petition" in the schedule to the Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that when a writ appeal is rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation, the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of s. 63 are attracted thereby entitling the appellant to the refund of one half of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. ( 5 ) HENCE, we make a direction for the refund of Rs. 501- to the appellant, which represents one-half of the court" fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. --- *** --- .