Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 974
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Jage Ram - Petitioner
Vs.
Ved Kaur & Ors. - Respondent
SLP (C) No. 723 Of 2023, Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 723 Of 2023
Decided On : 28-01-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Singh Kataria, Adv. Mr. S.P.Laler, Adv. Ms. Twinkle Kataria, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Thukral, AAG Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.
Refund of court fees is only permissible when cases are resolved through judicial settlement mechanisms, not through amicable or out-of-court settlements.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Refund of court fees - Court fees paid in a second appeal that was resolved by a private settlement with no referral to Arbitration or Lok Adalat is not eligible for refund as it does not fall under permissible categories for refund. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that a refund is only allowed when matters are officially referred to specific dispute resolution mechanisms and resultant decisions are based on such referrals. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the refund of court fees after a second appeal was resolved through an amicable settlement, but the High Court denied this request.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the settlement was not referred to judicial settlement authorities and thus denied the refund.
Issues: Whether the court fees are refundable when a second appeal is settled amicably rather than through recommended adjudication methods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a refund of court fees is allowable only when cases are settled through prescribed mechanisms such as arbitration or judicial settlements and not for amicable out-of-court resolutions.
Result: Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement must meet specified statutory criteria. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 2. fee refund request based on payment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. refund criteria not met. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court upheld denial of refund. (Para 8) |
| 5. final verdict of appeal dismissal. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The second appeal was decided by the High Court in terms of the settlement, a signed copy of which was produced before it.
3. Since the appeal was decided in terms of the settlement and not on merits, the petitioner prayed to refund the court fees paid by him in the trial Court as well as in the First Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court.
4. In the second appeal, the petitioner had paid Rs.29,053/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Thousand Fifty-Three only).
5. The High Court by the impugned order has rejected the prayer so made by the petitioner by holding that no ground for refund has been made out.
6. The refund of court fees is permissible only if the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.
7. In the case at hand, the settlement in terms of which the second appeal was decided by the High Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amicable settlement out of the court.
8. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fees and the High Court has not committed any error or illegality in refusing such a prayer.
9. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
