JUDGMENT : 1. Respondent is served with notice of this appeal, but he has remained absent. 2. Appellant, plaintiff in O.S. No.7602/2013 on the file of VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2019 rejecting the plaint and the Order dated 04.01.2020 dismissing the application to recall the Order dated 21.11.2019. 3. The parties to the appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience. 4. Brief and relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under: That plaintiff has filed the instant suit initially seeking the relief of permanent injunction against defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 5. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment to the plaint for converting the said suit for declaration by amending para 4(a) and prayer column as mentioned in the application. The said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 02.07.2018. Accordingly, plaint was amended. It was directed to the plaintiff to furnish amended plaint and fresh valuation slip. Plaintiff furnished the amended plaint along with fresh valuation slip. Based upon the valuation of the suit schedule property and valuation slip, Trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.1,20,803/- as per the office endorsement dated 26.10.2018. Trial Court has granted sufficient time to the plaintiff to pay the said Court fee on the plaint. But plaintiff has not paid. 6. On 21.11.2019, it is observed by the Trial Court that, sufficient opportunity was given, but even after lapse of one year, plaintiff had not deposited said court fee and the plaint has been rejected. 7. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application before the Trial Court to recall the order dated 21.11.2019. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application holding that, "there is no scope to recall the order dated 21.11.2019". 8. 7. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application before the Trial Court to recall the order dated 21.11.2019. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application holding that, "there is no scope to recall the order dated 21.11.2019". 8. Plaintiff - appellant has urged that the plaintiff is very poor and was not able to collect the money within the time stipulated by the Court, and hence, he sought time to pay the deficit court fee and the Court has erroneously rejected the plaint; that the Trial Court has not afforded the opportunity to argue the case on recalling application which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; that the plaintiff took a hand loan from his friends and obtained a Demand Draft on 04.12.2019 in the name of Registrar of City Civil Court, Bengaluru, towards payment of court fee. Along with the application, the plaintiff has produced photocopy of the D.D. Instead of accepting the said D.D., the Trial Court rejected the application. With these submissions, it is prayed to allow the appeal and permit the plaintiff to prosecute the suit by paying deficit court fee. 9. While preferring this appeal, the appellant has paid the court fee required to be paid on the plaint. 10. When this appeal is posted for admission, having regard to the facts of the case, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 11. We have heard the arguments. Perused the materials placed on record. 12. Undisputed facts are, plaint has been rejected for non payment of Court fee and the application filed by the plaintiff to recall the order of rejection of the plaint has also been rejected as per the Order dated 04.01.2020. 13. Plaintiff has contended that when he moved an application under Section 151 of CPC to recall the order dated 21.11.2019 by borrowing loan from his friends, he obtained D.D. for Rs.1,20,803/- drawn on Federal Bank and submitted a photocopy along with the application. The Trial Court has rejected the said application. It is submitted that if the suit is not restored plaintiff would be put to hardship. Now plaintiff is ready to pay the deficit court fee. The Trial Court has rejected the said application. It is submitted that if the suit is not restored plaintiff would be put to hardship. Now plaintiff is ready to pay the deficit court fee. It is submitted that, when the plaint is rejected and appeal is preferred on such rejection by paying the court fee, by virtue of provisions of Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, KCF & SV Act), whatever the court fee is paid on the appeal memo is to be refunded to the plaintiff so as to enable him to pay the same before the Trial Court. In support of this submission, learned advocate for plaintiff relied upon a Judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2004 KAR 892 in KRISHNAKUDVA AND ANOTHER Vs. GANAPATHY HEGDE. 14. Chapter III of Section 64 of the KCF & SV Act, 1958 speaks of the determination of fee. As per this Section, in every suit, in which the fee payable under this Act on a plaint depends on the market value of the subject matter of the suit, the plaintiff shall file the plaint, make statement in prescribed form with particulars of the subject matter of the suit and its valuation thereof unless such particulars and the valuation are contained in the plaint. 15. In this case, initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. Subsequently, converted the said suit for declaration by amending the plaint. He also filed fresh valuation slip. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court called upon the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court fee of Rs.1,20,803/- by invoking its power under Section 11 of the KCF & SV Act. In spite of giving sufficient time for more than one year, plaintiff has not paid the deficit court fee. The KCF & SV Act is a fiscal statute and has to be construed strictly both at the time of extracting revenue as also while refunding the same. 16. Now, plaintiff has invoked the provisions of Section 64 of the KCF & SV Act. The KCF & SV Act is a fiscal statute and has to be construed strictly both at the time of extracting revenue as also while refunding the same. 16. Now, plaintiff has invoked the provisions of Section 64 of the KCF & SV Act. The said provision of law reads as under: "64) Refund in cases of remand:- (1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the lower Court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for a fresh decision by the lower Court, the Court making the order or remanding the appeal shall, where the whole decree is reversed and the suit is remanded, and may in other cases direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal; and, if the remand is on second appeal, also on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate Court. (2) Where an appeal is remanded in second appeal be ordered if the remand was caused by the fault o the party who would otherwise be entitled to a refund: Provided further that, if the order of remand does not cover the whole of the subject matter of the suit, the refund shall not extend to more than so subject-matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded." 17. On reading the same, the proviso to sub-clause (2) to Section 64 shows that, no refund shall be ordered if the remand was passed by the fault of the party who would otherwise be entitled to refund. 18. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff submits that, an attempt was made by the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee after rejection of the plaint by borrowing the loan from his friends. But no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee and his application so filed came to be rejected for recalling the order of rejection of the plaint. 19. In a similar situation, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a Judgment reported in 2012 (1) Kar. L.J. 690(DB) in the case of SMT. TULASAMMA K. AND OTHERS Vs. 19. In a similar situation, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a Judgment reported in 2012 (1) Kar. L.J. 690(DB) in the case of SMT. TULASAMMA K. AND OTHERS Vs. JASSARAM AND OTHERS, it is held as under: "The plaintiffs have paid the requisite Court fee, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the plaintiffs to agitate their rights in the Court below. We do not know whether they were really unable to pay the Court fee or were they misled by others or what is the difficulty they had in paying the Court fee in the Trial Court when they are able to pay the Court fee on memorandum of appeal. Now they have learnt a lesson. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order: Appeal is allowed. the impugned Judgment and decree is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiffs as the court fee paid in this appeal would be transmitted to the Trial Court for payment of Court fee on the memorandum of plaint. The High Court registry shall refund the Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal to the appellant and the refund cheque shall be drawn on the Registrar, Bangalore City Civil Court, handed over to the appellant on being deposited in the Bangalore City Civil Court." 20. If the ratio laid down in the said Judgment is applied to the present facts, as the plaintiff had collected the money by borrowing loan from his friends and filed an application before the Trial Court seeking recall of order of rejection of plaint and consequentially on rejection of his application, has preferred this appeal and has paid the deficit court fee on memorandum of appeal. Plaintiff has expressed his financial difficulty in payment of court fee and this fact is not denied by the defendant / respondent. Now he has paid court fee on memorandum of appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. Plaintiff has expressed his financial difficulty in payment of court fee and this fact is not denied by the defendant / respondent. Now he has paid court fee on memorandum of appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. Because of non payment of deficit court fee, the suit is pending from the year 2013 and definitely defendant must have been put to some inconvenience. Therefore, the plaintiff has to be saddled with costs to be paid to the defendant. 21. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.7602/2013 on the file of VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff as the court fee paid in this appeal would be transmitted to the Trial Court for payment of court fee on the memorandum of plaint. (iii) In view of Section 64 of the KCF & SV Act, 1958, where the plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the Trial Court, is ordered to be received, the court making the order or remanding the appeal shall direct refund to the appellant the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. We order accordingly. (iv) The High Court Registry shall refund the court fee on the memorandum of appeal to the appellant - plaintiff and the refund cheque shall be drawn on the Registrar, Bengaluru City Civil Court, handed over to the appellant for being deposited in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (v) Appellant - plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant - respondent. The suit shall proceed only on payment of cost. As the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously with all its promptitude. No costs.