Back
High Court Of Kerala
K.T. SANKARAN
Ambika Rajan - Appellant
Versus
Basheera Beevi - Respondent
WP(C).No. 8261 of 2009 (O)
Decided On : 04/03/2009
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 2(a) - Suit for realisation of money was filed and decreed and Execution Petition was filed - Matter was settled between parties and a compromise petition was also filed which was accepted - Lok Adalat ordered refund of court fee to decree holder as per rules - Decree holder filed Execution Application in E.P. before executing court for refund of court fee paid in the suit which was dismissed and challenged - Held, The Writ Petitioner/decree holder is not entitled to refund of the court fee paid on the plaint, on account of the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat on a reference made to it in the Execution Petition - Writ Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The legal question concerns whether a decree holder is entitled to a refund of court fees paid on the plaint when a dispute is settled before a Lok Adalat in an execution proceeding (!) (!) .
The suit involved a claim for realization of money, which was decreed, and subsequent execution proceedings were initiated to recover the amount (!) .
The matter was referred to a Lok Adalat, where the parties settled the dispute through a compromise, and an award was passed, which was deemed to be a decree for certain purposes (!) (!) .
The award passed by the Lok Adalat is final and binding, and it is deemed to be a decree of a court, but it does not replace or substitute the original decree passed in the suit (!) (!) .
The court clarified that a compromise or settlement in an execution proceeding before a Lok Adalat does not constitute a new decree in the suit but is enforceable as an order based on the original decree (!) (!) .
Refund of court fees under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act applies when a case is referred to a Lok Adalat and a settlement is reached, but only if the case was pending before a court and the fee was paid in respect of that case (!) (!) .
In this context, the court emphasized that when an execution petition, which arises after a suit decree, is settled through Lok Adalat, the refund of court fees paid on the plaint is not applicable because the suit itself has already been decided (!) (!) .
The applicable law states that the refund of court fees is governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870, and related statutes, which specify that refunds are only permissible in certain circumstances, such as compromises within the suit or specific procedural rules (!) (!) .
The court noted that amendments to the law to facilitate refunds for cases settled before Lok Adalat have not been made in the relevant state legislation, and existing provisions do not support refund in the present scenario (!) (!) .
The conclusion is that the decree holder is not entitled to a refund of the court fee paid on the plaint in this case, as the settlement occurred at the execution stage and not within the original suit proceedings (!) .
The judgment also suggests that procedural reforms, such as amendments to the Court Fees Act, could improve the facilitation of refunds in cases settled through Lok Adalat, aligning with the objectives of the Legal Services Authorities Act (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification.
The question of law involved in this Writ Petition is whether the decree holder in a suit for realisation of money is entitled to get refund of the court fee paid on the plaint, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, when the dispute between the parties in the Execution Petition is settled before the Lok Adalat.
2. Thepetitioner filed the suit against the respondents for realisation of Rs.1,71,000/- with interest on Rs.1,50,000/-. The suit was decreed on 30.10.2001. The petitioner filed Execution Petition for realisation of the decree amount from the respondents by attachment and sale of their properties and by arrest and detention of the second judgment debtor in civil prison. The respondents entered appearance in the Execution Petition and filed objections. The parties submitted before the executing court that there was a possibility of settlement. Therefore, the Execution Petition was referred to the Lok Adalat organised by the Chirayinkeezh Taluk Legal Services Committee constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Before the Lok Adalat, the matter was settled between the parties and the respondents agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-to the decree holder in full and final settlement of the case. A compromise petition was also filed by the parties. The compromise petition was accepted. Ext.P3 award dated 12.2007 was passed. The operative portion of the award reads as follows:
"Decree holder and Judgment debtor present. Matter settled in the Adalat. Compromise petition filed. Refund for court fee to the Decree holder as per rules."
3. The petitioner/decree holder filed Execution Application in the Execution Petition before the executing court for refund of the court fee of Rs.11,125/-paid by her as court fee in the suit. The executing court dismissed that application by the order dated 20.8.2008, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The executing court held that no dispute involved in the suit was referred to the Lok Adalat, as the decree had already been passed. Though the Lok Adalat directed refund of the court fee as per Rules, the Rules do not provide for refund of any court fee in the execution proceedings. It was also held that Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act contemplates only a compromise or settlement in respect of a matter in a pending suit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the various provisions in the Legal Services Authorities Act. He also relied on the decisions in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India ((2005) 6 SCC 344), P.J.Thomas v. Thomas Job ((2005) 6 SCC 478, Vasudevan v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 993) and Sankunni Somadhan v. Vinodhini Amma (2000 (1) KLT 640). The counsel for the petitioner also raised a contention that on the passing of the award by the Lok Adalat, the decree passed in the suit gets merged into the award and in substitution of the decree passed by the trial court, the award passed by the Lok Adalat would be treated as the decree. The counsel contends that, therefore, the court fee is liable to be refunded under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
5. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. Section 2(a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act defines "case" thus:
"case includes a suit or any proceeding before a court".
Section 2(aaa) defines Court as:
""Court" means a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions."
Section 19 prov
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
