ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam 2005 has been filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the writ Court on 7.11.2020 in WP No. 19632/2014 whereby the writ Court relying upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2015) 16 SCC 31 (Committee GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. and others) allowed the petition in regard to refund of amount of stamp duty to the extent of relief claimed in the petition under Clause 7 (iii) and (iv). 2. The facts, leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that the respondent No.1 (petitioner before the writ Court) filed a writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the appellant to refund the amount of stamp duty as well as registration charges because the said firm participated in the auction conducted by the respondent No.2 and purchased the property after paying the consideration amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- over which an amount of Rs. 16,69,600/- was paid as a stamp duty and registration charges and the sale certificate was executed and issued by the Bank. 3. The defaulter-borrower upon repayment of entire dues got the sale set aside in an appeal preferred under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the auction proceedings. The said appeal was registered as MA No. 85/2020. The Debt Recovery Tribunal finally set aside the auction proceedings as it found some irregularity therein and directed the Bank to recall the sale certificate already issued in the name of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was not the party in the appeal and no request for refund of stamp duty and registration charges was made and, therefore, no order in that regard was passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner thereafter approached the Bank asking refund of the stamp duty and registration charges, but, despite assurance given by the Bank, no order was passed, though they made request to the Tribunal by issuing letter to pass an order in that regard so that the petitioner could be refunded back the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges. 5. 5. A review petition i.e. RA No. 02/2011 was filed by the Bank before the Tribunal, but the said review petition was also disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2012 reducing the rate of interest from 18 percent to 12 percent in favour of the auction purchaser, but, no order regarding refund of stamp duty was passed. Against the order passed in review petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, but, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2013. 6. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (For short ‘Stamp Act’) before the District Registrar-cum-Collector (Stamp). But no order was passed on the said application. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, which was registered as WP No. 19632/2014, which was finally allowed vide order dated 7.11.2020, which is impugned in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has criticized the order passed by the writ Court mainly on the ground that under the circumstances existing in the present case, it is the respondent-Bank, which has committed the irregularity and illegalities in the auction and ultimately the said auction was set aside on the basis of the said irregularity and, therefore, it is the Bank, which can be held responsible and should pay the stamp duty and registration charges whatever incurred by the auction purchaser in the alleged sale. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are cases of Supreme Court in which the erring party was held responsible and was directed to compensate the auction purchaser in case the sale is set aside. He has relied upon the decisions reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732-T.S.R. Subramanian and others v. Union of India and others, [ (2014) 5 SCC 610 ] Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and others [ (2014) 5 SCC 651 ] J. Rajiv Subramaniyan and another v. Pandiyas and others [ (2014)5 SCC 660 ] Vasu P. Shetty v. Hotel Vandana Palace and others and [ (2017) 1 SCC 302 ] P.M. Abubakar v. State of Karnataka and others. However, we are not convinced with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that the cases on which he has placed reliance do not deal with the specific provision, which has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Committee GFIL (supra), on which the writ Court has relied upon. For ready reference, section 49 of the Stamp Act is reproduce as under : “49. For ready reference, section 49 of the Stamp Act is reproduce as under : “49. Allowance for spoiled stamps.—Subject to such rules as may be made by [the [State Government]] as to the evidence to be required or, the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on application made with the period prescribed in section 50, and if he is satisfied as to the facts, make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases hereinafter mentioned, namely :— (a) the stamp on any paper inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any other means rendered unfit for the purpose intended before any instrument written thereon is executed by any person; (b) the stamp on any document which is written out wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party thereto; (c) in the case of bills of exchange [payable otherwise than on demand] or promissory notes— (1) the stamp on [any such bill of exchange] signed by or on behalf of the drawer which has not been accepted or made use of in any manner whatever or delivered out of his hands for any purpose other than by way of tender for acceptance : Provided that the paper on which any such stamp is impressed, does not bear any signature intended as or for the acceptance of any bill of exchange to be afterwards written thereon; (2) the stamp on any promissory note signed by or on behalf of the maker which has not been made use of in any manner whatever or delivered out of his hands; (3) the stamp used or intended to be used for [any such bill of exchange] or promissory note signed by, or on behalf of, the drawer thereof, but which from any omission or error has been spoiled or rendered useless, although the same, being a bill of exchange may have been presented for acceptance or accepted or endorsed, or, being a promissory note, may have been delivered to the payee: Provided that another completed and duly stamped bill of exchange or promissory note is produced identical in every particular, except in the correction of such omission or error as aforesaid, with the spoiled bill or note; (d) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party thereto which— (1) has been afterwards found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning; (2) has been afterwards found unfit, by reason of any error or mistake therein, for the purpose originally intended; (3) by reason of the death of any person by whom it is necessary that it should be executed, without having executed the same, or of the refusal of any such person to execute the same, cannot be completed so as to effect the intended transaction in the form proposed; (4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party, and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended; (5) by reason of the refusal of any person to act under the same, or to advance any money intended to be thereby secured, or by the refusal or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted, totally fails of the intended purpose; (6) become useless in consequence of the transaction intended to be thereby effected being effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value; (7) is deficient in value and the transaction intended to the thereby effected has been effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value; (8) is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, and in lieu whereof another instrument made between the same parties and for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped : Provided that, in the case of an executed instrument, no legal proceeding has been commenced in which the instrument could or would have been given or offered in evidence and that the instrument is given up to be cancelled. Explanation.—The certificate of the Collector under section 32 that the full duty with which an instrument is chargeable, has been paid is an impressed stamp within the meaning of this section.” 9. In the case of Mathew Varghese (supra), there were some irregularity committed during auction and ultimately it was set aside. Finally the Supreme Court has directed the respondent Bank to remit the excess amount available with them i.e. over and above the dues to the Bank to Debt Recovery Officer and opportunity was further granted to claim refund if they were eligible and further granted opportunity to them to claim refund of stamp duty, if eligible, but, nowhere it was held that if the claim is made under section 49 Stamp Act, the stamp duty should be refunded by the Bank. Further, in case of J. Rajiv Subramaniyan (supra), it has been observed by the Supreme Court that if any irregularity is committed during auction and the said auction is set aside, it is the Bank, which performed the auction, is held responsible and directed to refund the total sale consideration deposited together with accrued interest, but, in that case, nothing has been observed by the Supreme Court dealing with section 49 of the Stamp Act as to who would be held responsible for refund of stamp duty. Further in the case of Vasu P. Shetty (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that if in an auction of property of borrower any mandatory requirement has not been followed and sale is finally set aside, the borrower has been directed to discharge the entire liability of the Bank and further directed to reimburse the amount of registration fee and stamp duty to the auction purchaser. However, in this case also the Supreme Court has not dealt with the aspect that if the application is made under section 49 of the Stamp Act by the auction purchaser in regard to refund of stamp duty or registration charges incurred on a sale which is set aside by the order of the Court and further in case of P.M. Abubakar (supra), the Supreme Court has not dealt with the issue, which is involved in the present case and directed erring party to refund the deposit made by the debtor including the amount of sale consideration, but, there is no discussion as to whether the stamp duty is to be refunded and in what manner. However, in the case of Committee GFIL (supra), the Supreme Court has very clearly laid down in paragraph 26 onward holding that a person cannot be penalized for no fault of his and the act of the Court would prejudice no person applying the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit. The Court has also observed that under section 49 of the Stamp Act when the contract becomes void as a result of its cancellation by order of the Court which entitled the applicant to seek restitution of the money paid to the State for purchase of stamp papers. 10. Thus the cases on which the appellant has placed reliance are not applicable in the case in hand for the simple reason that in none of the cases impact of section 49 of the Stamp Act has been considered, unlike the case on which the writ Court relied upon. 11. In view of the above enunciation of law, we find that the writ Court has not committed any error in relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Committee GFIL (supra), directing refund of stamp duty and registration fee and as such the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant have no force and merit. 12. Resultantly, the appeal is without any substance and is hereby dismissed.