Court fees must be refunded when a suit is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, establishing a right to full refund in such cases.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)

The petitioner in all these cases is the HDFC Bank Limited. The Bank is calling in question an office note by the Registry of the concerned Court, which directs that there is no warrant to refund the Court fee in the light of the dismissal of the suit.

2. Heard Smt. Charu Atrey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, in all these cases.

3. The petitioner is the Bank. The respondent therein initiated certain proceedings for recovery of the money that it had lend to respective borrowers by instituting a suit in O.S.No.3785/2023 on 20.06.2023. It transpires that the amalgamation of the bank takes place after the institution of the suit on 06.11.2023. The amendment was carried out before the concerned Court on such amalgamation. On 19.06.2024, the bank then files an application seeking withdrawal of the suit on account of the fact that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings that ought to have been instituted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, 'the RDB Act'). The concerned Court allows the application seeking to withdraw the suits and leaves the issue of Court Fee to the Registry to decide. The Registry, then by its office note dated 22.01.2025, rejects the application insofar as it concerns to refund of Court Fee. It is this that has driven the Bank to this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the application seeking withdrawal of the suit to contend that a separate application seeking refund of the Court Fee was also made and in the application, it was clearly narrated that the concerned Court had no jurisdiction or competence to try the suit. The learned counsel would seek toplace reliance upon the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and that of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to buttress her submission that the refund of Court Fee is a consequence of the fact that the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, would submit that refund of Court fee cannot be done in cases where they have filed a memo for withdrawal. In cases where a plain memo for withdrawal is filed, directing refund of Court Fee, will have a catastrophic effect, as every suit that is withdrawn will come up with an application seeking refund of the Court Fee. He would submit that the order or office note of the Registry would not warrant any interference, as the application admittedly filed is contrary to the language of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

7. The petitioner - Bank institutes a suit in O.S.No.3785/2023 against several borrowers, who had sought finance from the hands of the Housing Development and Finance Corporation. The notice was issued in this suit. After the issuance of notice, the Housing Development Finance Corporation gets merged with HDFC Bank. The petitioners filed an amendment seeking modification of cause title, which is permitted. When the HDFC Bank comes into picture, it is noticed that the suit that they had filed for recovery of money i.e, the loans advanced to the borrowers, was not maintainable before the concerned Court, as they had to approach the Debt Recovery Tri