Judgment :- 1. The short question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the petitioners/plaintiffs are entitled to refund of Court fee paid on the plaint in O.S.No.415 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppur. 2. Brief Facts:-(i) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.415 of 2000 before the Sub-Court, Tiruppur praying for a Judgment and decree to declare the rent payable by the defendants for the suit premises at Rs.2.75 per sq. feet, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,967.47 together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% and for costs. The petitioners valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1,26,367.93 ps. and paid a total Court fee of Rs.9,933.25ps under Section 25(d) and Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1995 (herein after referred to as the Act). The Trail Court on examining the plaint averments, relief sought for and the valuation, issued a check slip inter alia stating that the declaration sought for in the plaint amounts to claim for enhanced rent and the provisions of Section 43(1)(b) of the Act are attracted and therefore the relief of declaration under Section 25(d) is not correct. The plaintiffs were given time to submit their objections to the check slip, it appears that the plaintiffs submitted their objections, which was considered by the Trail Court and rejected by order dated 04.10.2002 with further direction to remit the proper Court fees. As the order was not complied with the suit was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2002. (ii) The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.791 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC with a prayer to restore the suit which was dismissed for non-payment of additional Court fees. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.791 of 2002 it was pleaded that the third plaintiff was unwell and could not meet his lawyer to get the deficit court fee of Rs.3062.75ps., and as the stamp papers were not available the court fee could not be remitted, and tendered the deficit court fee along with the application by enclosing a calculation memo. The trial court by its order dated 13.08.2004 dismissed the application as not maintainable, by observing that the plaint was dismissed for non-payment of Court fees and noncompliance of conditional order passed on the check slip. The trial court by its order dated 13.08.2004 dismissed the application as not maintainable, by observing that the plaint was dismissed for non-payment of Court fees and noncompliance of conditional order passed on the check slip. (iii) Thereafter the plaintiffs filed another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to refund the total court fee paid and permit the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This application was returned by the Trial Court, by stating that when the suit was dismissed for default how the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of court fee when the plaint was not rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as to how permission to file fresh suit can be granted under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC without a prayer, more so when the suit is no longer pending and how two prayers can be sought for in a single petition. (iv) The plaintiffs subsequently filed a review petition in I.A.No.438 of 2005 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 115 CPC to review the order in I.A.No.791 of 2003, stating that in the order passed in I.A.No.791 of 2003 it was stated that the petition is not maintainable as the suit was rejected but the subsequent petition was returned stating that plaint is not rejected, that the plaintiffs who are poor litigants have lost the court fee of Rs.9933.25ps., and as per the return in unnumbered CFR.No.85/05 dated 04.01.2005, I.A.No.791 of 2003 ought to have been allowed. The plaintiffs placed reliance on the decision reported in 2004(2)LW page 154. The review petition was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 28.12.2005. (v) The plaintiffs have preferred the above Civil Revision petition under Section 115 CPC questioning the correctness of order dated 28.12.2005 in I.A.No.438 of 2005 in O.S.No.415 of 2005. 3. Contentions:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC a Court is entitled to reject the plaint when the suit is undervalued and the requisite court fees is not filed in time and when the plaint is so rejected the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of court fee under Section 66 of the Act. Contentions:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC a Court is entitled to reject the plaint when the suit is undervalued and the requisite court fees is not filed in time and when the plaint is so rejected the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of court fee under Section 66 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court refusing refund of Court fee suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Question for consideration:-(i) In the instant case the plaintiffs having failed to pay the deficit court fee, despite order of the trial Court and the trial Court, having dismissed the suit, subsequently whether the same would fall within the mischief of Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC? (ii) If question number (i), (supra), is answered in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of full Court fee paid? 6. Discussion:- To answer the questions which arise for consideration it would be necessary to look into Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and for better appreciation, they are reproduced herein below:- 11. 6. Discussion:- To answer the questions which arise for consideration it would be necessary to look into Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and for better appreciation, they are reproduced herein below:- 11. Rejection of plaint:-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9, [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. HIGH COURT AMENDMENT (MADRAS): For clause (c) substitute the following: (c) Where the relief claimed is property valued, but the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency within the time, if any, granted by the Court." Section 66.Refund in cases of delay in presentation of plaint, etc:-(1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal is rejected on the ground of delay in its re-presentation, or where the fee paid on a plaint or memorandum of appeal is deficient and the deficiency is not made good within the time allowed by law or granted by the Court, or the delay in payment of the deficit fee is not condoned and the plaint or memorandum of appeal is consequently rejected, the Court shall direct the refund to the plaintiff or the appellant, of the fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected. (2) 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-half of the fee shall be refunded. 7. In the instant case, the plaint was presented seeking a declaratory relief against the defendants in respect of the rent payable by the defendants for the suit premises. The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs.1,26,367.93ps and paid total court fee of Rs.9933.25ps under Section 25(d) and Section 22 of the Act. Thereupon an objection was raised by the Trial Court and a check slip was issued stating that the valuation of the suit under Section 25(d) was not correct and the plaint ought to be have been valued under Section 43(1)(b) of the Act as the suit is for enhancement of rent. The plaintiffs were directed to file their objections. It appears that objections were filed and the Trial Court not being satisfied with the same, rejected it and by order dated 04.10.2002 and directed the plaintiff to calculate the correct Court fee and remit the same. As seen from the order of the Trial Court on the checkslip no specific date was given within which time the order should be complied with. As seen from the order of the Trial Court on the checkslip no specific date was given within which time the order should be complied with. It is furhter seen that the Trial Court passed the following order on 3.12.2002 "condition order not complied in the Civil suit dismissed." The petitioners filed I.A.No.791 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit which was dismissed for non-payment of additional Court fee. This petition was dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable by order dated 13.08.2004. The petitioners thereafter filed review petition which was dismissed. From a bear perusal of the orders of the Trial Court 03.12.2002, and 13.08.2004, it is evidently clear that the suit came to be dismissed solely on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the conditional order passed on the check slip. Therefore even if the expression "suit dismissed" has been used in the order of the Trial Court dated 03.12.2002, in effect, it is an order rejecting the plaint for non-compliance of a conditional order issued by the Trial Court on the check slip. This contingency squarely falls within the scope and mischief of Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC, as the plaint in the instant case was questioned on the ground of improper valuation. Though the suit was numbered, this objection has been raised by the Trial Court as per the instructions received during the Annual Inspection, which fact is evident from the order dated 13.08.2004 in I.A.No.791 of 2003. As noticed a check slip was issued to the plaintiffs and objections were called for, the Trial Court not being satisfied with the explanation offered, directed the plaintiffs to correctly value the suit and pay appropriate court fee. This having not been complied with by the plaintiffs, the suit has been dismissed. Thus in effect, the plaintiffs having failed to supply the requisite stamp inspite of having been ordered to do so, the plaint is deemed to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC. 8. As noticed above, Section 66 deals with refund of Court fees in cases of delay in presentation of plaint and other contingencies. The second limb of Sub-Section (1) of Section 66, deals with the contingency where Plaints are rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c), and the language adopted in both states are pari materia. 8. As noticed above, Section 66 deals with refund of Court fees in cases of delay in presentation of plaint and other contingencies. The second limb of Sub-Section (1) of Section 66, deals with the contingency where Plaints are rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c), and the language adopted in both states are pari materia. In the instant case, the court fee paid on the plaint was found to be deficient, and the deficiency was not made good by the plaintiff as directed by the Court, though no specific date was given by the Trial Court for compliance of the conditional order. Further, the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit having been dismissed as not maintainable, the Court is bound refund the court fee paid as the case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 66(1) of the Act. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Honble Division Bench of this Court in M/s. P. Thiruvengada Mudaliar vs. Syndicate Bank and others, (1983) II MLJ 242, wherein the Honble Division Bench considered the scope of Section 66 of the Act and held as follows:- 3. From a reference to sub-section (1) of Section 66 it will appear that, where the requisite Court-fee to be paid on the memorandum of appeal has not been paid within the time granted by the Court, or the delay in payment of the deficit court-fee has not been condoned and the memorandum of appeal is rejected, the Court has been given power to order refund of the court-fee payable by the appellant; sub-Section (2) deals with a situation where an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal has come up for consideration of the Court, and has been rejected. In the latter case it is provided that only half the court-fee paid will be refunded. No such limitation is placed where an appeal is rejected on the ground mentioned in sub-section (1). 9. It is seen that the petitioners have filed a petition before the Trial Court not only seeking refund of Court fee, but also sought leave of the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. No such limitation is placed where an appeal is rejected on the ground mentioned in sub-section (1). 9. It is seen that the petitioners have filed a petition before the Trial Court not only seeking refund of Court fee, but also sought leave of the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Having held that the case on hand falls under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC, no leave is necessary to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, in view of clear mandate under Order 7 Rule 13 CPC. In the event of the petitioners exercising their option to file a fresh suit, the Trial Court shall take note of the period during which this revision was pending for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. 10. Conclusion:- For all the above reasons, the questions arising for consideration are answered as follows:- (i) The case on hand is a rejection of plaint for non-payment of deficit court fees as under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC. (ii) As the plaint was rejected for non-payment of requisite court fee, the plaintiffs are entitled for refund of court fee under Section 66(1) of the Act. 11. Order:- In the result, the above Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the orders passed by the Trial Court are set aside and it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of court fee under Section 66(1) of the Act and the Trial Court is directed to refund the court fee paid by the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.415 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppur. No costs.