B.C. Mitra, J. - (1.) In this application the petitioner seeks appropriate Writs and orders directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to cancel, recall and set aside the orders passed by them to the effect that they could not entertain the petitioner's application for refund of the amount of excess court -fee, on the ground that the said application could not be entertained by them unless the total amended valuation of the estate was accepted by the High Court. The petitioner in this case is a solicitor of this Court and by a power of attorney dated December 12, 1960, he was authorised by the executors to the estate of one Hugh Carl Joseph Smith (since deceased) to apply for and obtain letters of administration, with a copy of the will annexed, to the estate of the said deceased in India. As such constituted attorney, the petitioner applied to this Court on August 11, 1961, for grant of letters of administration. In the affidavit of assets affirmed by the petitioner on May 1, 1961, and filed with the application for grant of letters of administration, the estimated value of the estate left by the said deceased in India was shown at Rs. 1,03,815.51 paise. On the basis of this valuation the petitioner paid court -fees in the sum of Rs. 3,590 under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
(2.) On August 14, 1961, letters of administration were granted by this court to the petitioner in respect of the estate of the deceased. The petitioner's case is that at the time of the usual enquiries made in connection with the application for grant of letters of administration by the Probate Deputy Collector, for the purpose of ascertaining or finding out, if assets and properties were correctly valued, it was found that the assets left by the said deceased in India were over -valued by Rs. 14,598.95 paise. Due to such overvaluation, the petitioner paid excess Court -fee in the sum of Rs. 630.95 paise. In the circumstances, the petitioner claimed refund of this excess Court -fees paid.
(3.) On March 14, 1962, the petitioner made an application to the respondent No. 1, under Sec. 19A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for refund of the said excess court -fee, that is Rs. 630.95 paise. An affidavit was also forwarded by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 containing the particulars of the said over -valuation. The respondent No. 1 refused to entertain and consider the petitioner's said application and put forward the plea, that since the High Court had accepted the valuation of the assets while granting the letters of administration, the High Court should amend the valuation of the assets, before the respondent No. 1 could accept or act upon the petitioner's application for refund. It was on this basis that the petitioner's application for refund was not dealt with by the respondent No. 1 and thereupon the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a rule nisi.;