Dawson Miller, C.J.In this case the defendant appealed and in his memorandum of appeal paid a Court fee of Rs. 295, which was the amount paid by the plaintiff in the Court below as Court-fee. On the attention of the Taxing Officer being drawn to this by the Stamp Reporter the matter came before the Taxing Officer, the contention on behalf of the Stamp Reporter being that a fee in excess of Rs. 295 ought to have been paid on the memorandum of appeal Thereupon the matter was considered by the appellant, and he came to the conclusion that in fact the stamp fee which he had paid on his memorandum of appeal was more than that which he was under any legal necessity to pay, because it appeared that as he was only claiming a declaration the proper stamp fee payable was really Rs. 10. This matter having been brought to the notice of the Taxing Judge, the learned Judge decided that on this point the appellant was right and found as a matter of fact that the proper fee payable was only Rs. 10. The appellant having paid a stamp fee of Rs. 295 now petitions the Court to issue a certificate to the Revenue Authorities to enable him to obtain a refund of the excess Court-fee. There is no provision, so far as I am aware, in the Court Fees Act itself which provides for such a contingency but under-section 151 of the CPC the Court undoubtedly has inherent powers to do whatever may be necessary for the ends of, justice, This question of refunding Court-fees paid by mistake has on more than one occasion been the subject of judicial decisions of the High Court and in particular in the case of Hari Har Guru v. Ananda Mahanty 20 Ind. Cas. 498 [LQ/CalHC/1912/506] : 40 C. 365, an order similar to that which we are now asked to make was made. It appeared that in that case as in the present case the appellant, who was also defendant, paid a Court-fee which was the same as that paid by the plaintiff in the Court below. In fact having regard to the nature of his appeal which sought relief against a part only of the decree, he paid a sum of Rs. 285 in excess of that which he was legally bound to pay and after considering the matter the Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Mookerjee and Mr. Justice Beachcroft, made an order directing the Taxing Officer to issue the necessary certificate to enable the appellant to apply to the Revenue Authorities to obtain a refund of the excess Court-fee. In the present case although one cannot lay down a general rule which would be applicable to all cases, I think there is sufficient reason for making a similar order. This Court-fee was paid perhaps in a hurry and without considering carefully the exact amount which the appellant was legally liable to pay, but the matter having been brought to his notice he did from that time contend that he had paid more than he need have done. In these circumstances I think he is entitled to get back the excess Court-fee and the Taxing Officer is accordingly directed to issue the necessary certificate to enable the appellant to apply to the Revenue Authorities to obtain a refund of the sum of Rs. 285, the amount of the excess Court-fee.

Ali Imam, J.

2. I agree.