ORDER Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. 1. This appeal is directed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing an order dated 21.11.2008 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Harda in Reference Case No. 1/2008 by which the reference under Section 18 of the Act was dismissed only on the ground that Appellant Fatehchand had not appeared in the witness box. Though his power of attorney, son Anil Kumar appeared in witness box to prove the claim. From the perusal of the impugned order also, we find that the Reference Court after considering this aspect dismissed the reference and has not appreciated the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in respect of enhancement of the compensation to the Appellant, though evidence adduced in the case was referred but without any marshalling of the evidence. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the reference was filed through the power of attorney Anil Kumar who happens to be son of Fatehchand, Appellant. Fatehchand is an old and infirm person who is sick for the last 20 years and is residing at Bhopal. He had appointed Anil Kumar, his son as power of attorney by a registered power of attorney. Anil Kumar was taking care of the affairs of the Appellant since 1986. He was also having personal knowledge in respect of the disputed land, trees etc. He was also taking care of agricultural work of the Appellant. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that this power of attorney himself was having personal knowledge in the matter and his evidence ought to have been taken into consideration. Apart from this, Appellant is residing since last 20 years at Bhopal. He is an old and infirm person and when power of attorney holder was having personal knowledge in respect of facts, his evidence ought to have been considered and appreciated by the reference Court. He has placed reliance to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Man Kaur v. Kartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512 in support of his contention. 3. Shri Agrawal further submitted that because of the aforesaid technical ground, reference application was dismissed by the reference Court. He has placed reliance to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Man Kaur v. Kartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512 in support of his contention. 3. Shri Agrawal further submitted that because of the aforesaid technical ground, reference application was dismissed by the reference Court. The Appellant is entitled for refund of the court-fee paid in this appeal, as the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh decision after appreciating the evidence which was not done by the Reference Court on earlier occasion. He has also placed reliance to Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Bhushan Misra AIR 1980 SC 591 , a Division Bench's judgment of this Court in Shakuntala Devi v. Land Acquisition Officer 2008 (1) MPLJ 645 , a Single Bench's judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Chowkse v. State of M.P. AIR 1986 MP 130 and submitted that substantial court-fee paid in this appeal may be directed to be refunded to the Appellant under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act. 4. Shri Arpan J. Pawar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent supported the order passed by the Reference Court and submitted that it was the duty on the part of the Appellant to appear in the witness box as the Appellant was himself having personal knowledge in the matter. For the first time, the matter was to be adjudicated judicially by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, so it was necessary on the part of the Appellant to examine himself in the evidence, failing which the Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference by the impugned order. So far as refund of the court-fee is concerned, it was submitted by Shri Pawar that it was a fault on the part of the Appellant who had failed to appear in the witness box, so in case of remand, the Appellant is not entitled for refund of the court-fee. 5. To appreciate rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate if factual position in the case is stated. The Appellant was Bhoomiswami of certain agricultural lands situated at village Bichola, Tahsil and District Harda which were acquired by the Respondents for the purpose of Indira Sagar Project. 5. To appreciate rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate if factual position in the case is stated. The Appellant was Bhoomiswami of certain agricultural lands situated at village Bichola, Tahsil and District Harda which were acquired by the Respondents for the purpose of Indira Sagar Project. These lands were to be submerged in the Project, so these lands were acquired by the Respondents. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 13,62,232/ - to the Appellant but for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,26,64,445/ -, an application was filed by the Appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.1.2007 to the Civil Court. The Reference Court after receiving the pleadings of the parties framed issues and directed the parties to adduce evidence. In the evidence, the Appellant examined his power of attorney-cum-son Anil Kumar apart from other evidence of G.S. Timane, Mohanlal Patel, Lakhan C. Bhai and Narayan Gujar The Respondents examined U.S. Dubey, Basantilal Babania, Patwar, and Sudhir Tare, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer. The Reference Court though reproduced the evidence in the impugned order but without any marshalling. In para 17 of the order, Reference Court found that the applicant/Appellant had not examined himself but his power of attorney son Anil Kumar was examined. The Reference Court by referring two judgments of the Apex Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441 and Janki Vasudeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439 , arrived at a finding that it was necessary on the part of the Appellant to examine himself and the power of attorney could have done all other work except participation in the judicial proceedings and he was not competent to examine himself to prove the case in reference. The Appellant ought to have examined himself and if he was old and infirm, then a commission could have been got issued under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, failing which the case was not proved and the Reference Court dismissed the reference on this solitary ground. This order is under challenge in this appeal. 6. To appreciate the contention of the Appellant, it would be appropriate if the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Man Kaur (supra) is referred. This order is under challenge in this appeal. 6. To appreciate the contention of the Appellant, it would be appropriate if the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Man Kaur (supra) is referred. The Apex Court after considering earlier judgments of the Apex Court including Vidhyadhar (supra) and Janki Vasudeo Bhojwani (supra) in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment, summarised, in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment, the principles in respect of examination of power of attorney. The Apex Court has also considered the question when a deposition by power of attorney can be relied. For ready reference, para 18 of the judgment of the Apex Court may be reproduced in which all the aforesaid principles have been categorised by the Apex Court: 18. We may now summarise for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge: (a) An attorney- holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. (b) If the attorney-holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney-holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney-holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved. (c) The attorney-holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge. (d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney-holder, necessarily the attorney-holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorised managers/attorney-holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney-holders. (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney-holder, the principal has to examine that attorney-holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney-holder. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorised managers/attorney-holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney-holders. (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney-holder, the principal has to examine that attorney-holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney-holder. (f) Where different attorney-holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney-holders will have to be examined. (g) Where the law requires or contemplated the Plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his "state of mind" or "conduct", normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney-holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his "bona fide" need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his "readiness and willingness" fall under this category. There is however a recognised exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or "readiness and willingness". Examples of such attorney-holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad. 7. In this case, from the perusal of statement of Anil Kumar, it is apparent that he has specifically stated that he is son of the Appellant and also power of attorney holder. His father is 70 years old and he is an old and infirm person and since last 20 years, he is sick and he is residing at Bhopal. He has appointed his son Anil Kumar as power of attorney holder. Being son, he was taking care of agricultural, bank affairs and was managing properties. In the year 1986, he was appointed as general power of attorney and was having personal knowledge in respect of agriculture, agricultural land and trees standing on the land. He has also stated that he was involved in the agricultural work. Being son, he was taking care of agricultural, bank affairs and was managing properties. In the year 1986, he was appointed as general power of attorney and was having personal knowledge in respect of agriculture, agricultural land and trees standing on the land. He has also stated that he was involved in the agricultural work. In subsequent paras, he has stated in respect of the details of agricultural land, trees standing on the land, acquisition of the land, value of the land and the trees which were standing on the land. From the perusal of the cross-examination by the Respondents, we find that aforesaid statement made in para 1 of the affidavit was not controverted by the Respondent, in absence of which, statement made by Anil Kumar in respect of the aforesaid facts remained uncontroverted. Though he was cross-examined in respect of the value of the land, nature of the land, yield of the land, condition of the trees and profits from the land, but in respect of power of attorney, personal knowledge of Anil Kumar, sickness of his father, Appellant herein, nothing was challenged, in absence of which the Reference Court ought to have evaluated the evidence of Anil Kumar in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court by which it has been held that where the law requires or contemplated the Plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his "state of mind" or "conduct", normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an power of attorney-holder. But there is a recognised exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney who happens to be a close family member, it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney-holder even with reference to certain facts which require to be proved by the Plaintiff. The Apex Court has also considered the characters of such persons like husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and inform parent, father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad. In the present case, Anil Kumar who is power of attorney of his father Fatehchand has specifically stated that since last 20 years, he was managing the affairs of his father. In the present case, Anil Kumar who is power of attorney of his father Fatehchand has specifically stated that since last 20 years, he was managing the affairs of his father. He was taking care of agricultural activities and was having personal knowledge in respect of the issues involved in the case. In these circumstances, the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence and ought not to have rejected the reference merely on the ground that Fatehchand had not appeared in the witness box and only Fatehchand was having personal knowledge of certain facts of which his son Anil Kumar was not having any knowledge. Respondents have not challenged the statement of Anil Kumar which was made by him in para 1 of his affidavit, in absence of which, Reference Court erred in not considering the case on merits and rejecting the reference on technical ground. 8. So far as judgments of the Apex Court in Vidhyadhar and Janki Vasudeo Bhojwani (supra) are concerned, both judgments have been considered in the recent pronouncement by the Apex Court in Man Kaur (supra). 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to redecide the matter after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence produced by the parties in respect of reference under Section 18 of the Act. 10. Now the question arises whether the Appellant who has paid ad valorem court fee in this appeal is entitled for refund of the court-fee. In this case, it is not in dispute that the power of attorney appeared in the evidence who on oath had stated that his father Fatehchand was sick since last 20 years and he himself was taking care of all the agriculture, property and bank affairs of his father. In these circumstances, apparently the dismissal of reference was unjustified. Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides as under: 13. In these circumstances, apparently the dismissal of reference was unjustified. Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides as under: 13. Fees paid on memorandum of appeal: If an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower Court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be received, or if a suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the same Code, for a second decision by the lower Court, the Appellate Court shall grant to the Appellant a certificate, authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal: Provided that, if, in the case of a remand in appeal, the order of remand shall not cover the whole of the subject-matter of the suit, the certificate so granted shall not authorize the Appellant to receive back more than so much fee as would have been originally payable on the part or parts of such subject-matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded. Aforesaid provision specifically provides that if a Suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a second decision by the lower Court, the appellate Court shall grant to the Appellant a certificate authorising him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Now the para-materia provision of old section to 351 is Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure which provides where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, at the time of remand of the case, may further direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded. In this case, the Reference Court rejected the reference on a technical ground that the Appellant/applicant had not appeared in the witness box while the case was proved by the power of attorney. As the aforesaid decision has been found to be erroneous and the matter has been remanded back to the Reference Court for a fresh decision, the Appellant is entitled for refund of the court-fee. 11. As the aforesaid decision has been found to be erroneous and the matter has been remanded back to the Reference Court for a fresh decision, the Appellant is entitled for refund of the court-fee. 11. The Apex Court in Chandra Bhushan Misra (supra) considering the legal position held that the refund of the court-fee paid in appeal can be ordered under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act where remand is made in the interest of justice as provided in Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure A Division Bench of this Court in a case of land acquisition in Shakuntala Devi (supra) considering the legal position in para 9 of the judgment held that because there was error of calculation and the Reference Court had not taken into consideration the distinction between the small plots and large track of land, in such circumstances, when the case is remanded, the Appellant was entitled for refund of the court-fee. 12. In Suresh Kumar Chowkse (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held that when there is an order of remand in appeal after setting aside the decree, under Order 41 Rule 23 or 23 A of CPC, the Appellant is entitled for refund of the court-fee. In the present case, because of the aforesaid erroneous technical reason, reference application itself was rejected. The evidence was not appreciated to ascertain the claim of the Appellant for compensation etc., this Court is left with no option except to remand the matter. In these circumstances, the Appellant is entitled for refund of the whole court-fee in accordance with law which has been paid by the Appellant on the memorandum of appeal before this Court. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and following order is passed: (i) Order passed by the Reference Court dated 21.11.2008 in Reference Case No. 1/2008 is set aside. The Reference Court shall now restore the reference case and decide the matter afresh, after hearing both parties, in accordance with law, (ii) As both parties are present herein, we direct that both parties to remain present before the Reference Court on 4.7.2011 for which no fresh notice shall be necessary to the parties. On the aforesaid date, after restoring the reference case, the Reference Court shall proceed in the matter from the stage at which the impugned order was passed. On the aforesaid date, after restoring the reference case, the Reference Court shall proceed in the matter from the stage at which the impugned order was passed. (iii) The Registrar of this Court shall issue a certificate of refund of the Court fee as per Section 13 of the Court Fees Act authorising the Appellant to receive back from the Collector the full amount of court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Considering facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.