Court fees should be refunded even when cases settle out of court, promoting private dispute resolution methods, which supports judicial efficiency.

ORDER :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Rosedar S.R.A., learned counsel for the petitioner /appellant.

I . Facts :-

2. Respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 78 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore, against the 5^th respondent (Defendant No.1) and the petitioner/appellant (Defendant No.2), seeking a preliminary decree directing payment of the suit amount of Rs.78,00,000/- along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit, and thereafter a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. They also sought a personal decree in the event the sale proceeds of the schedule property were insufficient to satisfy the decretal amount.

3. After contesting the suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 08.04.2024, directing the 5^th respondent to pay the suit amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum until the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, granting three months time for redemption.

4. Challenging the preliminary decree dated 08.01.2024, the present A.S.No.472 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant.

5. On 04.11.2024, this Court granted interim stay in I.A. No. 1 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner/appellant deposits the suit costs within a period of six (06) weeks, which was duly complied with, and a memo to that effect was also filed.

6. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant/defendant No.2 and the respondents/plaintiffs resolved their dispute out of Court. On 21.10.2024, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.56,00,000/- to the respondents/plaintiffs towards full and final settlement, and a Full Satisfaction Memo to that effect had been filed before the learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, in I.A. No. 623 of 2024 in O.S. No. 78 of 2019, which was allowed, and the execution proceedings were terminated.

II . I.A.No.1 of 2025 for refund of Court Fee :-

7. The petitioner/appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in the present appeal, supported by an affidavit containing the aforesaid averments, with a prayer for refund of the Court Fee amount of Rs.80,526/- paid in this appeal.

III . Submission of learned counsel for the appellant :-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute between the parties has been resolved out of Court and that the decree has been satisfied. The same has also been recorded by the learned Execution Court. In view of the full and final settlement, nothing survives for adjudication in the appeal, and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further prayed for a refund of the Court Fee. He placed reliance in the following judgments:

1. Polyprint Private Limited and Others V. Canara Bank and Another , 1997 (4) ALD 281 (D.B)

2. Dayaram V. Smt.Laxmi Agrawal , 2022 SCC On-line MP 6004

3. High Court of Judicature at Madras, represented by its Registrar General V. M.C.Subramaniam and Others , (2021) 3 SCC 560

10. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs did not appear.

IV . Submission of learned counsel for the appellant :-

11. The following points arise for our consideration and determination :

A. “Whether in view of the out of Court settlement, without reference to any of modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution under Section 89 CPC, and in view thereof, the appeal being withdrawn, the Court fee paid in this appeal deserves to be refunded ?

B. If the answer to Point A is, yes, to what amount of Court Fee ?”

V . Consideraton / Analysis :-

Point ‘A’:-

12. We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused t