B. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of an executrix in a proceeding for grant of probate and is directed against order No. 30 dated October 26, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas at Barasat in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 107 of 1993 thereby refusing to return court fees paid in advance by the petitioner although her prayer for withdrawal of the said proceeding was allowed. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner filed an application, before the learned District Judge, North 24-parganas for grant of probate of the Will of her mother with the copy of the said Will annexed. Before the matter became contentious, she deposited the highest amount of court fees payable on a probate i. e. Rs. 10,000/ -. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner decided not to press the said application for grant of probate and an application to that effect was filed before court. The petitioner filed a separate application for refund of the said court fees of Rs. 10,000/ -. ( 4 ) BY the order impugned, the learned District Judge has allowed the prayer of withdrawal of the proceeding but refused to pass any order of refund of court fees on the ground that the learned advocate for the petitioner failed to satisfy him as regards the said prayer. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up in revision. This application has been heard after giving notice to the Government pleader, High Court. ( 6 ) AS rightly pointed out by Mr. Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the court has in certain circumstance jurisdiction to order refund of court fees on the principle that every court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae, i. e. to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists. Such powers are generally exercised in any of the following cases:- (A)where court fees have been paid by over sight, mistake or inadvertence. (b)where a litigant has made excess payment under an erroneous view of interpretation of court fees Act. (c)where the court has realised excess court fees on erroneous interpretation of law. [see Eagle Plywood Industries v. Amulya Gopal Mazumdar and Ors. (b)where a litigant has made excess payment under an erroneous view of interpretation of court fees Act. (c)where the court has realised excess court fees on erroneous interpretation of law. [see Eagle Plywood Industries v. Amulya Gopal Mazumdar and Ors. reported in 69 CWN page 1025 (S. B)] ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner was under no obligation to deposit the court fees of Rs. 10,000/- before the court had arrived at a decision that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of probate. An application for grant of probate or Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed cannot be equated to a plaint or a Memorandum of appeal. In probate proceeding court fees are paid on the grant but not on the application. For that reason an unsuccessful propounder of a Will is not liable to pay court fees. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the petitioner paid the highest amount of court fees either due to mistake, inadvertence, oversight of under erroneous view of interpretation of the West Bengal Court Fees Act. ( 9 ) THUS, it is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees. ( 10 ) THE revisional application is therefore allowed. The learned District Judge is directed to pass necessary order of refund of court fees. No costs. Application allowed.