JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Both these revision applications as well as petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are being heard and decided by this common judgment with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. While the miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Rent Authority, Agra dated 15.1.2024 directing for return of papers and court fees, the revision application arises out of an order passed by the Judge Small Cause deferring the hearing upon miscellaneous application filed by the applicant bearing paper no.22-C/6 as to the maintainability of the suit upon the payment of court-fee stamps, which could not have been utilised once cancelled or consumed by the earlier court while entertaining the suit/case. 3. Mr. Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate argued before the court that once the court fees submitted to a court to institute a case without which the case could not have been entertained, such court fees cannot be refunded as it stands consumed by cancelling it and the only remedy available to a litigant is to get a certificate from the court concerned to get the same liquidated from the Revenue Collector of the District to purchase fresh stamps to submit the court fees to maintain the suit in an appropriate court where it would be maintainable. 4. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgement of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Munna Lal and others versus Abir Chand AIR 1958 All 766 which came to be followed in the judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mushtaq Ali versus Anand ram and 20 others which followed the Full Bench view of the judgment of a coordinate bench in the case of Ravindra Kumar Gupta versus Additional Civil Judge Senior Division 2017 (5) ADJ 616 LG390/Manu/0931/2071. He has also placed before the court relevant Rule 7 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Rules, 2021 and also the Form 7 i.e. prescribed for presentation of a petition under the new Act and has also relied upon the meaning of the word ‘Form’ as given in Cambridge Dictionary in its online additioan to interpret ‘prapatra’ which means only ‘Form’ and not the court fees. 5. 5. Countering the submissions so advanced as above by learned Senior Counsel, Sri Saxena, Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has advanced 2 fold arguments. (i)- Return of the court fees along with the plaint for presentation before the proper court is the discretion exercised by the court in favour of the plaintiff and does not in any manner prejudice the defendant/respondent who has nothing to do with the payment of court fees so long as it is not deficient in a sense that it ousts the jurisdiction of the court concerned where it is presented. (ii)- The returned court fees was used for it was not cancelled as was required to be done after it was submitted to the court initially. (iii)- When the court does not apply its mind to the merits of the case and returns the plaint for its presentation before a competent court of law having the jurisdiction, there is no error of law in returning the plaint along with annexed court fees at the same time. 6. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Swapnil Kumar has placed reliance upon an order of the Supreme Court dated 25.10.2019 passed in the matter of Dr (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar v. T. Choithram and Sons & Ors. passed in a petition being Special Leave to Appeal (C ) No.18102 of 2013. He has also placed reliance upon the english version of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2021 to demonstrate that the word ‘prapatra’ would include the court fees as it is mandatorily required to be mentioned inasmuch as attached copies as referred to under Rule 7(3) would mean attached court fees as well. 7. It is further argued by Sri Swapnil Kumar that Judge Small Cause was justified in deferring the hearing upon miscellaneous application quoting the court fees paid by submitting the court-fee stamps which were allegedly claimed to be already cancelled, because if this court proceeded to hold that court fees could not have been returned and the order was bad, then petitioner was liable to seek first the certificate and then to resubmit the court fees and in the event the court upheld the order, then this issue would not be arising at all. Thus according to him an order if passed by the Judge Small Cause upon such an issue, it could have come in conflict with the view of this court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, the only point that arises for consideration before the Court is, “weather the Rent Authority while returning Form 7 petition was justified in returning the same along with court fees as well for its presentation before the court having the jurisdiction or ought to have issued a certificate to plaintiff to apply for its refund from the Revenue Collector so as to enable him to purchase a fresh set of court fees to submit in SCC suit.” 9. In order to find answer to the above question, I first proceed to examine the relevant rules of U.P. Act No.16 of 1921. The relevant Rule 7 runs as under: “7. Application for eviction and recovery of possession. (1) For eviction and recovery of possession of premises on the grounds mentioned in sub- section (2) of Section 21 or sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Ordinance', the landlord shall make an application to the Rent Authority in the manner given in Form-7. While submitting the aforesaid application landlord may also pray before the Rent Authority for recovery of arrears of rent and other charges, if any, from the tenant. (2) No such application shall be accepted unless the E-mail IDs or WhatsApp or mobile number of the landlord and counsel thereof are mentioned therein. (3) Before filing such application, the landlord shall send the scanned or PDF copy of all the papers including the application on the E-mail id or WhatsApp number or contact number of the tenant, or by registered post and a certificate of such sending shall also be filed along with the application. (4) No reply to the application or any document shall be received by the Rent Authority unless the concerned party sends the scanned or PDF copy of all such papers on the E-mail id or WhatsApp number or contact number or by way of registered post to the other party and his counsel, and a certificate of such sending is filed with such papers. (5) In case of an application under clauses (a) or (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 21, of the Ordinance the tenant shall regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default of the tenant in making such a deposit, the reply, if any, of the tenant filed to oppose such application of the landlord shall not be considered. (6) The office of the Rent Authority shall inform the date that is fixed by the Rent Authority by WhatsApp or SMS to the parties and their counsel, and a record of sending such messages shall be maintained. (7) If there is more than one landlord being co-owner, the application for eviction and recovery of possession of the premises may be signed by one of them but in such a case, the co-landlords being co-owners shall be arrayed as pro-forma opposite parties and this provision shall mutatis mutandis apply also to other applications under the Ordinance (8) Every application or its reply shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908).” (emphasis added) 10. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions as contained under the Rules, it refers to Form-7 in which the petition is to be presented for getting relief as per the grounds mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 21 or sub-section 1 of Section 22, that are meant for the eviction of the sitting tenant from the demised premises. Form-7 as prescribed under the first schedule of Act No.16 of 2021 is reproduced hereinunder…. Form-7 [See Rule 7(1)] Before the Rent Authority, ……………….. Application No………………..Year…….. IN THE MATTER OF ………… Applicant/Landlord v. …………………… Opposite Party/Tenant Sir, This applicant is filing this application with particulars detailed below: Name(s) of the applicant and particulars of the Applicant(s) . Form-7 as prescribed under the first schedule of Act No.16 of 2021 is reproduced hereinunder…. Form-7 [See Rule 7(1)] Before the Rent Authority, ……………….. Application No………………..Year…….. IN THE MATTER OF ………… Applicant/Landlord v. …………………… Opposite Party/Tenant Sir, This applicant is filing this application with particulars detailed below: Name(s) of the applicant and particulars of the Applicant(s) . (a) Name of the applicant : ...Applicant (b) Permanent address of the applicant : (c) Address for effecting service : (d) E-mail ID of the applicant : (e) Whatsapp number of the applicant : (f) PAN No. : (g) Name of the counsel of the applicant : (h) Address for service of the above counsel : : (i) Email ID of the counsel : (j) Whatsapp number of the counsel : Versus : Name(s) and Particulars of the Opposite Party : ...Opposite Party (a) Name of the opposite party : (b) Pennanent address of the opposite party : (c) Address for effecting service : (d) E-mail ID of the opposite party : (e) Whatsapp number of the opposite party : (f) PAN No. : DETAILS OF APPLICATION : 1 Particulars of violation against which the present application is made: : 2 Unique Identification No ................... issued u/s 4(5) of the Ordinance. : 3 Document No .......... : ......... of tenancy agreement, if registered before the Sub- Registrar. : 4 Jurisdiction of the Rent Authority (The applicant declares that the subject matter of this application is within the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority) : 5 The fact of the case : (Give concise statement of facts in chronological order, each paragraph containing as nearly as possible a separate issue or fact) : 6 Grounds for relief : 7 Whether application previously filed or pending with any other court: (The applicant is to declare that the applicant has neitehr previously filed an application, appeal, petition, writ petition or suit regarding the subject matter in respect of which this application is being moved, before any court or nay other authroity or any tribunal nor any such application, writ petition or suit is pending before any of them. In case the applicant has previously filed any such application, appeal, writ petition or suit, the details of the pendency of such cases filed; or if disposed of , the decisions of such cases are to be enclosed.) : 8 Relief sought (Because of the grounds mentioned m para 6 above, the applicant prays for the following relief(s)):- (Specify below the relief(s) sought to explain the grounds for such relief( s) and the legal provisions, if any, relied upon) : 9. Interim order, if any prayed for The pending final decision on the application, the applicant seeks the following interim relief (Give here the nature of the interim relief prayed for) : 10 Date of advance notice of this application, if given to the opposite party: : 11 Date of service of advance notice upon the opposite party (If there are several opposite parties, the dates of service of notice on each of the opoosite parties) : 12 Valuation for Court fees: Valuation and mode thereof for payment of Court fees as per Section 39 of the Ordinance read with the Court Fees Act, 1870. : 13 Amount of Court fees paid 14. Whether affidavit in terms of Section 33 (1)(a) of the Ordinance is being filed Yes No 15. Documents attached VERIFICATIQN I. .................................. (Name of the Applicant) S/o/W/o./D/O . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... : .......................... ,aged about. .... ,residing at. ........................................ , do hereby verify that the contents of paras .............. to ............. are true to my knowledge, paragraph number ................ to ............. are based on information received from records and paragraph number ................ to ................. are believed to be true on the legal advice received and I hereby declare that I have not suppressed any material facts and no part of the information furnished above is false. I further state and afÏrm that I shall not seek adjournments and will endeavour for the earliest disposal of the application. Verified at.. ............... (name of the place) on this .................. day of. ........ (name of month) of. .. (mention year). Date: (Signature of the Applicant) Place: (Counsel of the Applicant) 11. I further state and afÏrm that I shall not seek adjournments and will endeavour for the earliest disposal of the application. Verified at.. ............... (name of the place) on this .................. day of. ........ (name of month) of. .. (mention year). Date: (Signature of the Applicant) Place: (Counsel of the Applicant) 11. Upon perusal of the aforesaid Form-7 one would easily conclude that it is a prescribed format for the purposes of memo of petition to be presented by the landlord seeking appropriate relief against the tenant and then at the foot of the form, before the affidavit to be filed, it refers to valuation for payment of court fees and the amount of court fees paid and then the last Column 15 refers to the documents that are to be attached. 12. Thus, it is clear that the form, though provides for valuation to be given for the purposes of case to be presented and the amount of court fees which is paid only but naturally every petition has to be accompanied by the requisite court fees. No petition can be entertained without annexing the document either in the form of challan receipt of deposit as an acknowledgement of the court fees already submitted, if it is permissible in law to submit in any bank or otherwise in treasury or with the court fees itself in the form of stamp paper along with the petition. 13. Thus, when the court directs for return of the prapatra then it might technically meant to say Form 7 with attached documents but it would certainly include a plaint with court fees attached unless and until the rules provide otherwise. The columns that have been filled up by the landlord-respondent especially 12, 13, 14 and 15 are reproduced hereinbelow: Details of Application 12. Valuation of court fees For the purpose of court fees valuation for the application is Rs.56,10,000.00 for eviction being 12 months rental value and for realization of rent, taxes, GST, CESS, masne profits, cost of notice etc. up till the date of moving the application is Rs.86,22,373/-and court fees on both the amount is being paid separately. The total valuation of the suit is Rs.1,42,32,373/- 13. up till the date of moving the application is Rs.86,22,373/-and court fees on both the amount is being paid separately. The total valuation of the suit is Rs.1,42,32,373/- 13. Amount of court fees paid Rs.10,68,253/- 14 Whether affidavit in terms of sec.33(1)(a) of the Ordinance is being filed Yes 15 Documents attached The documents are being filed as per list separately containing notice dt 14.03.2023 postal receipts & tracing reports, information of tenancy to your honor, Regd tenancy agreement /lease deed dt 07-03- 2018 between the parties etc. 14. Now, if I come to the order that has been passed and impugned herein in this petition, I find that Rent Authority while dismissing the case for want of maintainability on 20.11.2023 also passed an order quoted on the order-sheets separately as under: 15. From a bare reading of the aforesaid order, it clearly transpires that the Presiding Officer meant that the case though was being dismissed on the point of maintainability but the liberty was to be given to the plaintiff to seek relief from an appropriate competent court of law. Accordingly, papers were directed to be returned. 16. This above order dated 10.11.2023 was never put to challenge by the present petitioners and it was in compliance of the above order dated 20.11.2023 that the respondent landlord moved a miscellaneous application for return the papers along with court fees which came to be allowed by the order impugned dated 15.1.2024 and were ultimately returned on 19.1.2024. 17. Before I proceed further to examine the law on the point of return of court fees while returning a plaint for its presentation before the competent court of law, I need to examine as to whether the court fees submitted before the Rent Authority was cancelled or not. The original records are before the court and from close scrutiny thereof, I find that none of the stamps which were in the denominations of Rs.1000/-, 5,000/- and 25,000/- was cancelled. There is no remark either for cancellation, or any punching made in that regard upon the stamps, nor even there is any seal of cancellation. Thus the court-fee stamps that were presented before the Rent Authority were returned as they were along with the plaint/Form- 7 for its presentation before the competent court of law and even in the competent court of law, the court-fee stamps have not been cancelled. 18. Thus the court-fee stamps that were presented before the Rent Authority were returned as they were along with the plaint/Form- 7 for its presentation before the competent court of law and even in the competent court of law, the court-fee stamps have not been cancelled. 18. The Court Fees Act, 1870 provides for the entertainment of a petition to be proceed with on merits after the sufficient court-fee stamps are presented and then relevant rule framed thereunder provides for refund or renewal. 19. Section 30 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides as under: “30. Cancellation of stamp.-No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled. Such officer as the Court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document, forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figure-head so as to leave the amount designated on the stamps untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed.” 20. In order to carry out the purpose of the provisions of the Court Fees Act, United Provinces Stamp Rules, 1942 were framed which provided for the refund of the stamp by the Collector. 21. Rule 36 of the United Province Stamp Rules , 1942 (hereinafter referred to 1942 Rules), 1942 Rules are here relevant and are being reproduced hereinbelow: “36. Saving of fees to certain officers of High Courts. Nothing in Chapters II and V of this Act applies to the commission payable to the Accountant General of the High Court at Fort William, or to the fees which any officer of a High Court is allowed to receive in addition to fixed salary.” 22. From reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Rule 36, it comes out that either the impressed stamp other than the adhesive stamps that make the amount of court fees sufficient, will be cancelled by writing upon each sheets and attested by the signatures of the person filling the same or official appointed in that behalf by the authority of court would cancel the stamp under Section 30. 23. 23. Insofar as the damaged and spoiled stamps are concerned for which the provisions have been incorporated for refund and renewal, Rule 226 defines the damaged or spoiled stamps and the Rule 227 defines the power of refund of court fees by the Collector. Both the provisions are reproduced hereinunder: "226. A stamp shall be deemed to be damaged or spoiled in the cases hereinafter mentioned, namely:- (i) When the stamp or the paper on which it is impressed or affixed has been inadvertently or undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by any means rendered permanently unfit for use whether the said paper to be written on or not; (ii) When by reason of some material error in the writing or copying of a stamped document it shall have become of no avail; iii) When the purpose intended to be effected by a stamped document has been effected by some other document duly stamped; (iv) In cases in which the plaint for filing a suit has been written on the stamp but has not been presented to the court, the necessity for doing so having ceased to exist; (v) When an instrument chargeable with duty under the Stamp Act, is by mistake executed on an impressed court-fee stamps and has been endorsed under section 42 of the Stamp Act." 227. (i) When any person is possessed of impressed court-fee stamps for which he has no immediate use, or which have been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, or (ii) when any person is possessed of two or more (in the case of denominations below Rs. (i) When any person is possessed of impressed court-fee stamps for which he has no immediate use, or which have been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, or (ii) when any person is possessed of two or more (in the case of denominations below Rs. 5, four or more) court-fee adhesive labels which have never been detached from each other and for which he has no immediate use the Collector shall, on application repay to him after deducting ten naya paise in the rupee, the value of such stamps or labels in money, upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled unless it is a document mentioned in clause (v) of the rule 226, and proving to the Collector's satisfaction that they were purchased by him with the bona fide intention to use them, that he has paid the full price thereof, and that they were so purchased, or in the case of impressed court-fee stamps, so purchased, spoiled or rendered useless, within the period of six months preceding the date on which they are so delivered or endorsed: Provided that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, in special cases, allow refunds when the application is made within one year from the date of the purchase of the stamps or labels, or also in the case of impressed court-fee stamps, within one year from the date on which the stamps were spoiled or rendered useless." 24. Upon reading of Rule 226 as quoted above, it clearly transpires that these provisions are not attracted to the present case because case in hand is not of damaged or spoiled stamps, instead, here is a case of utilized or used but uncancelled court-fee stamps, if any. The Rule 227 of Rules, 1942 provide for the Collector’s power to refund the court-fee stamps which have not been put to use. Of course, a Collector has to arrive at a satisfaction that purchase was with the bona fide intention to use them and price was paid in full. Reading the aforesaid provisions conjointly, both the rules framed under the Act and the substantive provisions of the Act, it becomes clear that the refund is to be made only in the event of spoiled and damaged stamps but there is no provision for the refund of used stamps. Reading the aforesaid provisions conjointly, both the rules framed under the Act and the substantive provisions of the Act, it becomes clear that the refund is to be made only in the event of spoiled and damaged stamps but there is no provision for the refund of used stamps. The word ‘used stamps’ means the stamps presented before the court is to be utilised in a sense that those stamps were cancelled to maintain a petition. 25. This is also the conclusion arrived at by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ravindra Kumar Gupta and others (supra), in which vide paragraph no.36 the court has held thus: “36. Thus, this provision deals with refund of court-fee stamps for which a p no immediate use, or which have been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, or when any person is possessed of two or more (in th denominations below Rs. 5, four or more) court-fee adhesive labels which been detached from each other and for which he has no immediate use. In such situation the refund shall be made by the Collector, on an application to deducting ten naya paise in the rupee, the value of such stamps or labels upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled unless it is mentioned in clause (v) of the Rules 226, and on proving to the Collector's satisfaction that they were purchased by him with the bona fide intention to use them, the he has paid the full price thereof, and that they were so purchased, or in the case of impressed court-fee stamps, so purchased, spoiled or rendered useless within the months preceding the date on which they are so delivered or endorsed.” 26. The co-ordinate Bench thereafter considered Rule 384 of General Rules (Civil) 1957 regarding punching to be done upon the court-fee stamps and the use of rubber stamp to mark the court-fee stamps cancelled. The court referred to various other rules also such as Rule 385, 386 and 389 and then reading down them with Rule 252 and 259 of the Rules, 1942 framed under the Act of 1870 and concluded vide paragraph no.48 and 49. Thus, paragraph 48 and 49 are reproduced hereinunder: “48. The court referred to various other rules also such as Rule 385, 386 and 389 and then reading down them with Rule 252 and 259 of the Rules, 1942 framed under the Act of 1870 and concluded vide paragraph no.48 and 49. Thus, paragraph 48 and 49 are reproduced hereinunder: “48. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is borne out that on the presentation of any document required to be stamped under the Court Fees Act, or the furnishing of any such document the impressed stamps or labels shall be immediately cancelled as provided by Section 30 of the Act, 1870 by initial punching when a document bearing a court-fee stamps is presented before any court or office competent to receive the same. Such cancellations also takes place on two other occasions one of which is by the record-keepers when records are consigned to their custody, the other cancellation of stamps takes place on the copies, documents, certificates and other similar documents by the court or office from which such copies etc. are issued. 49. The short point involved herein is as to whether the court-fee stamps submitted by the opposite party No. 3-plaintiff along with the application dated 24.04.2013 for acceptance after the time for filing the same in terms of the order dated 06.11.2012 had already expired, can be termed as having been filed or acted upon for the purposes of Section 30 and other provisions of the Act, 1870 read with Rules 252 to 259 of the Rules, 1942 and Rules-384 1 386 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 and whether they could have been returned by the Civil Court in the facts and circumstances of the case considering the provisions discussed herein above. 27. However, the co-ordinate Bench since was considering fate of unutilized additional court-fee stamps as the application to submit the same bearing paper no.6C-2 was rejected and, therefore, these stamps were held to be refundable vide paragraph no.53 and 54. Thus, paragraph 53 and 54 are reproduced hereinunder: “53. 27. However, the co-ordinate Bench since was considering fate of unutilized additional court-fee stamps as the application to submit the same bearing paper no.6C-2 was rejected and, therefore, these stamps were held to be refundable vide paragraph no.53 and 54. Thus, paragraph 53 and 54 are reproduced hereinunder: “53. In these circumstances, once, on a reconsideration of the matter, the application No. C-57 for rejection of plaint was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2013 and the plaint was rejected on the ground of insufficiency of court-fee stamps and fallure of the plaintiff to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed by the Court even after being required by it to do so, the application No. C-62 for accepting the court- fee also stood rejected, therefore, in this peculiar factual scenario it cannot be said that the said court-fee had been filed or acted upon or used. This is also for the reason that when the application dated 24.04.2013 was filed with a prayer to accept the additional court-fee, which had been submitted on the same date, the court-fee which would be treated as "filed or acted upon" would be the court-fee paid on the said application dated 24.04.2013 which was duly punched and cancelled by the officer concerned and not the additional court-fee which had been offered on the said date for acceptance. The situation can be better explained by pointing out that the court-fee filed at the initial stage along with the plaint will have to be cancelled immediately as is required under Section 30 of the Act, 1870 read with Rule 252 to 259 of the Rules, 1942 and the corresponding Rule 384 to 386 of the General Rule (Civil) 1957, but, in a case such as the present one, where, after filing of the said court-fee, the plaint was subsequently amended, but, the consequential additional court-fee ordered to be paid by the court was not paid within the time stipulated, but, was offered subsequently, belatedly, which was ultimately not accepted, as, the plaint was rejected on 20.12.2013, such court-fees stamps which had been offered on the same date as submission of application dated 24.04.2013 could not have been cancelled unless the application was allowed by the Court, therefore, and as ultimately in view of the order dated 20.12.2013 the application dated 24.04.2013 stood rejected and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on this very ground of failure to deposit the court-fee within time, these additional court-fee stamps cannot be said to have been filed or acted upon or used and they were at best 'offered to be filed' and not 'actually filed or acted upon' so as to attract the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, 1870 and the rules referred herein above. It would be rather unjust to hold that merely by offering such court-fee stamps, which were not even accepted by the Court, the opposite party No. 3-plaintiff would be deprived of the return of such stamp, as, it is not the intention of law that a litigant should be penalized to pay the court-fee twice for the same cause of action, that too without the amended plaint being entertained. 54. In these circumstances and on a consideration of the provisions of law aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the additional court-fee offered by the opposite parties No. 3-plaintiff on 24.04.2013 was only offered for filing and acting upon, but, this offer was not accepted, and as neither any cancellation was done as per law, the same cannot be treated as having being acted upon or used, therefore, liable to be returned. The Act and the Rules do not bar return of court-fee stamps in such a peculiar situation as in the present case, which is not even envisaged in the Act, 1870 or Rules. Any other view of the matter will cause grave prejudice and injustice to the litigant. No prejudice is being caused to the petitioners.” 28. The Court considered the issue of refund of court fees also in the event of return of plaint and held that court where the certain stamp papers upon which the plaint is transcribed and is returned even after the cancellation for presentation before subsequent court with competent jurisdiction, then it is entertainable with new registration number to be alloted by the court to the suit. The court proceeded to distinguish the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 from Order 7 Rule 10 as the former to be covered under the decree contained under Section 2(2) and not the latter one. Thus, the co-ordinate Bench, however, held that refund of court fees in the event upon return of plaint for presentation before another court, the court-fee stamps if cancelled, the issue of original refund of court-fee stamps would be impermissible. However, return of court-fee stamps along with the plaint unless specifically barred like in the present case, would not be bad. Paragraph 55 of the judgment is reproduced here in under: “55. In a case of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 invariably the plaint and the court-fee stamps on which also some part of the plaint and/or details thereof are typed and which have even been cancelled as per Section 30 of the Act, 1870 and the Rules are returned for presentation before the competent Court as it is, which on return, are accepted by the subsequent Court with a new registration number of the suit. The case at hand is an exceptional one where it was required to be returned. True, as stated by Shri Sudeep Seth, rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is very different from return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, especially as, the former is covered in the definition of 'Decree' contained in Section 2(2) C.P.C., but, this would be material and relevant only if return of the original court-fee stamps filed with the plaint, which is rejected, is sought, as, that would be impermissible. Here the return is of additional court-fee stamps offered consequent to amendment of the plaint which were not accepted and the plaint was rejected on the ground of non deposit of additional court-fee. Moreover, the analogy of return of plaint is being referred only to emphasise the return of court-fee stamps along with it and that such return, unless specifically barred, is not impermissible in the peculiar facts of the present case.” 29. Now coming to the Full Bench judgment cited before the court, I find Full Bench to have held that even if the court fees is paid inadvertently, the refund cannot be made in the civil court but has to be addressed to the revenue authorities only, inasmuch as the question where such an extreme view should be taken or not would depend upon the nature of the case and order whether the court fees is sought to be refunded is refundable or not. The issue before the Full Bench was, whether after filing of the case if the withdrawal is sought to be made before the admission on account of the case having become infructuous, the plaintiff was entitled to court fees or not. The question so framed in paragraph no.2 came to be answered in paragraph 28. Thus, both the paragraphs are reproduced here under: “2. The question to be decided therefore is: "Whether this Court can in the exercise of its-inherent powers order refund of court-fee pald in respect of an appeal which has been withdrawn before admission on account of having become infructuous?" 28. There are cases which have gone to the length of holding that the Court has no inherent powers, at all to order refund of court-fee, and that even if the court-fee has been paid inadvertently, the prayer for refund cannot be made in the Civil court but has to be addressed to the revenue authorities. For instances of such cases reference may be made to Lalta Prasad v. Sheoraj Singh MANU/UP/0299/1920 (25); U Po Toke v. U. Lu GyrAIR 1936 Rang 352 (26) and In re Vedaranyaswamy Devasthanam MANU/TN/0362/1941 (Z7). Some observations of Desai, J. in Tej Bahadur v. Pearey Lal MANU/UP/0196/1957: AIR1957A11734 (Z8'l which are in the nature of obiter dicta also Indicate the same view. Some observations of Desai, J. in Tej Bahadur v. Pearey Lal MANU/UP/0196/1957: AIR1957A11734 (Z8'l which are in the nature of obiter dicta also Indicate the same view. The necessity of going into the question whether this extreme view is justified or not can arise only when it is found that the amount which is sought to be refunded is refundable. It is not so in the present case. Here, the amount was paid properly and intentionally as the appeal would not have been entertained if it had not been paid. There is therefore no question of its being ordered to be refunded either in the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court or otherwise.” (emphasis added) 30. It is rightly argued by Mr. Swapnil Kumar that the case decided by the Full Bench is always with reference to the question referred. So the issue in germane would be more determinative factor than the general principle of law. According to him, the Full Bench was more concerned with issue involved and that was why it held that it would all depend upon the case to case, but surely enough if concluded that refund was to be made by the Revenue Authority and not by the civil court. Thus, the court could have only issued a certificate to get it liquidated from the Collector. 31. Now, I proceed to refer to judgment of another co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mushtaq Ali which relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench to hold that whatever the court fees is genuinely paid and was required to be paid to maintain a case would not be refundable and only excess amount of stamp court fee would be refundable. 32. Here, I would refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talvar (supra) in which the court in its penultimate paragraph held thus: “Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refund of the court fees. This application has been rejected only on the ground that the appeal has been disposed of on merits. We are unable to agree with the High Court. What has been disposed of is only the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is no order on the merits of the suit. This application has been rejected only on the ground that the appeal has been disposed of on merits. We are unable to agree with the High Court. What has been disposed of is only the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is no order on the merits of the suit. The effect is that the plaint has been ordered to be returned to be filed in the appropriate Court. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to refund of the court fees so that he can fix the court fee in the State where he would like to file the suit. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the entire court fees be refunded to the petitioner.” (emphasis added) 33. From the reading of the aforesaid observations, it clearly transpires that the court upheld the claim of the plaintiff for the return of court fee along with the plaint for its presentation before the court and, accordingly, reversed the order of the High Court to allow the appeal. 34. From the discussions as made above, two distinct words and expressions emerged out, ‘refund and ‘returned’. So far as the refund of the court fee is concerned, it is true that it can be refunded only in the event the party submitting the court fees claims its refund for either not having utilised it or the court fees got damaged or spoiled as per the provisions contained under Rule 226 of the 1942 Rules or even in the event where an application to present a court fee is rejected and the court- fee stamps remain unutilized but the question is where the stamps have been utilised to maintain a case. It is true that even after the case is withdrawn or the case is dismissed for its presentation before the appropriate court or the court of competent jurisdiction as such court-fee stamps cannot be refunded but the question is whether the stamps once utilised can be returned if affixed on the plaint or attached with the form as stated to be Form 7 of the Appendix 1 of the Act No.16 of 2021 or not for re-registration of the case before a competent court of law. 35. 35. In my considered view, the above authorities cited before me do not in any manner lead to any such conclusion that such return of plaint along with the court fee, was impermissible. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ravindra Kumar Gupta, very clearly observed vide its paragraph no.30 that for its presentation before the competent court to register as a case the refund of such fee is impermissible. Thus, in a case where the court fee is returned along with the plaint to be presented before the competent court of law even if punched or cancelled would not be refunded but can be returned with plaint for its entertainaibility and maintainability before another competent court of law. 36. The parties submitting the court fees has utilized the stamp and is not seeking its refund and merely for the reason that it presented a case before the wrong forum and case is returned to be presented before the right forum, it would be too harsh to hold that such court fees since stood cancelled now cannot be returned and such a litigant could be charged with another set of court fees. The purpose to pay the court fees under the Court Fees Act is the maintainability of a case and the money spent in the court fees goes to the State. The issue would only be there when a party wants to liquidate the court-fee stamps as refund. It can only be done in two circumstances, either it is a case of defaced, damaged or spoiled stamp or it is a case where the application to entertain additional court fee stands rejected and the court-fee stamps are not utilised. 37. Thus, in my considered view, the rent authority was not wrong in returning the plaint along with attached court-fee stamps. It is definitely not a case of refund and should not be confused with the words and expression refund. Besides the above, I also find that the court-fee stamps that have been returned along with the Form 7 to be presented before the competent court do not carry either the seal of its cancellation, nor do bear any note or mark by the competent officer so as to be suggestive of its cancellation. Besides the above, I also find that the court-fee stamps that have been returned along with the Form 7 to be presented before the competent court do not carry either the seal of its cancellation, nor do bear any note or mark by the competent officer so as to be suggestive of its cancellation. Even otherwise, in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court referred to and quoted above in the matter, I do not see any manifest error of law in the order passed by the rent authority impugned herein in this petition. 38. Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 39. Insofar as the revision petition is concerned since the hearing on the issue was deferred, it is left open for the Judge Small Causes to decide this issue accordingly. 40. The original records are returned to the trial court to proceed with within 3 days.