ORDER Wangdi, J. This petition is directed against the impugned Order of the Learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok dated 28-05-2013 in Civil Misc. Case No.41 of 2011 by which an application under Section 6 of the Sikkim Court Fees (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1983, filed by the Petitioner for refund of court fees amounting to Rs.7,11,342.15 was rejected. 2. Shorn of all the details, it is the case of the Petitioner that in a suit for recovery of Rs.56,90,737/-filed by it against M/s. Golden Tobacco Company (P) Ltd. and Others being Money Suit No. 36 of 1984, court fees of Rs.7,11,342.15 was deposited vide BR No.116932 dated 04-05-1984 in the State Bank of Sikkim, Gangtok Branch. This Suit was subsequently transferred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to itself by its Order dated 27-11-1984 in Transfer Petition No.439 of 1984. 3. Later this was referred for settlement by arbitration of Hon’ble Shri Justice S. C. Agarwal, retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, as the Sole Arbitrator who after hearing the parties disposed of the matter vide award dated 28-12-2007. A decree was thereafter drawn in terms of this award vide Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 02-02-2010. 4. As soon as the said decree was received, the Petitioner approached the District Collector with an application dated 12-11-2009 for refund of court fees amounting to Rs.7,11,342.15 who by Order dated 05-04-2010 issued a Certificate of Settlement. It is stated that despite the Order of the District Collector the Petitioner was not granted the refund as prayed for leading the Petitioner filing an application under Section 6 of the Sikkim Court Fees (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1983, before the Court of the Learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.41 of 2011. 5. It is submitted that since the case was settled without any hearing before the commencement of the trial, the Petitioner ought to have granted with the refund of the court fees but, instead of doing so the prayer of the Petitioner was rejected by the Learned District Judge vide impugned Order dated 28-05-2013. 6. Mr. Case No.41 of 2011. 5. It is submitted that since the case was settled without any hearing before the commencement of the trial, the Petitioner ought to have granted with the refund of the court fees but, instead of doing so the prayer of the Petitioner was rejected by the Learned District Judge vide impugned Order dated 28-05-2013. 6. Mr. Jorgay Namka, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that the sole ground for rejection of the prayer for refund as would appear from the impugned Order is that there were no reliable evidence to support the claim of the Petitioner that it had indeed paid the court fees as claimed. The reason for arriving at the conclusion was that other than photocopies neither originals nor attested copies of the documents had been filed by the Petitioner in support of its claim. 7. During the course of the proceedings of this case, this Court, by Order dated 17-09-2013, had directed the District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok to send the original bank receipt No.116932 dated 04-05-1984 claimed to have been produced before that Court along with Suit No.4 of 1984 (renumbered as Civil Suit No.36 of 1984). 8. In terms of the said direction, the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, I/C, by a letter bearing Ref. No.153/D&SJ(E/N) dated 05-10-2013 addressed to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, forwarded a letter of the Peshkar of that Court bearing Ref. No.141/D&SJ/ E&N dated 19-09-2013 informing that the document as sought for was not available as the entire case records of the suit had been forwarded to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compliance to its Order dated 27-11-1984. However, the Case Registration Register (that is, the Institution Register) revealed that the Petitioner while filing the Suit being Civil Suit No.4 of 1984 on 05-05-1984 had submitted the original Bank Receipt No.116932 dated 04-05-1984 for Rs.7,11,342.15 as proof of having deposited court fees of the like sum. A certified copy of the relevant entry in the institution register is also found to have been annexed to that letter. 9. Mr. A certified copy of the relevant entry in the institution register is also found to have been annexed to that letter. 9. Mr. J. B. Pradhan, Learned Additional Advocate General, fairly submits that the report of the Learned Principal District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, I/C, now clears the doubt that had crept in when the impugned Order was passed by the Learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok and nothing further remains to be considered. 10. I have considered the petition, the records of the case and the report of the Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok. There is no dispute of the fact that the Civil Suit No.36 of 1984 was disposed of without hearing and settled before a trial. In such view of the matter and the fact that the very report of the Learned District & Sessions Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, itself undeniably establishes that court fees as claimed on behalf of the Petitioner had been paid. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the Learned Additional Advocate General, that the doubts expressed by the Learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok stands cleared and nothing further is left to be determined in the present case. 11. In the result, the Petition is allowed and impugned judgment of the Learned District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok is hereby set aside. As provided under Section 6 of the Sikkim Court Fees (Exemption and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1983, the Petitioner shall be entitled to refund of court fees amounting to Rs.7,11,342.15 deposited in the State Bank of Sikkim vide BR No.116932 dated 04-05-1984. 12. No order as to costs. 13. Let a copy of this Order and the Original records be transmitted forthwith to the Learned Court below for its due compliance.