Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 2389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, SURYA KANT, JJ.
DR (COL.) Subhash Chandra Talwar – Petitioner
VERSUS
T. Choithram And Sons & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).18102 of 2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-05-2012 in CM No.8013/2012, 04-05-2012 in FAO No.459/2007 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
Decided On : 25-10-2019
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Atishi Dipankar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Adv., Ms. Tanya Sharma, ADv., Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR, Mr. Sudhir Mendiratta, AOR
The rejection of an appeal on the ground of jurisdiction does not amount to a decision on the merits of the suit, entitling the petitioner to a refund of court fees.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Refund of Court Fees - Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for damages, which was initially dismissed by the High Court on the ground of jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, but the plaint was ordered to be returned with liberty to file it before the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed an application for refund of the court fees, which was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the rejection of the appeal was not on the merits of the suit, but only on the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The effect was that the plaint was ordered to be returned to be filed in the appropriate Court, entitling the petitioner to a refund of the court fees.
Issues: Jurisdiction, Refund of Court Fees
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the appeal was not a decision on the merits of the suit, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the court fees as the plaint was ordered to be returned to be filed in the appropriate Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed that the entire court fees be refunded to the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner herein filed a suit for damages. The defendants filed a petition before the High Court under Order VII Rule 11 praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. That plea was accepted by the learned Single Judge.
2. On a review petition being filed, the learned Single Judge modified the order and rejection of the plaint was directed as against dismissal of the suit as ordered earlier.
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. However, the plaint was ordered to be returned with liberty to file it before the court of competent jurisdiction.
4. 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. 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.
5. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
