Point of Law: Section 70 of the Act comes into play only when there is no adjudicatory process.

JUDGMENT :

Can court fee be refunded after the suit is decided on merits is the question that arises for consideration?

2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.04/2018 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod, has filed the original petition challenging Ext.P6 order. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

3. The skeletal facts leading to Ext.P6 order are as follows:

(i) The petitioner had filed the suit against the respondents for a decree for damages.

(ii) By Ext.P1 judgment, the court below dismissed the suit.

(iii) The petitioner filed I.A. No.127/2019 (Ext.P2) for the refund of the court fee and the legal benefit fund stamps.

(iv) As there was a delay on the part of the court below in disposing Ext.P2 application, the petitioner filed O.P(C) No.1690/2019 before this Court. This Court orally observed that the petitioner’s remedy is to seek for the return of the plaint, plaint documents and court fee.

(v) Accordingly, the petitioner filed I.A. No.170/2019 (Ext.P3) for the return of the plaint, plaint documents, court fee and legal benefit fund stamps.

(vi) By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed the court below to dispose Ext.P3 application within 15 days.

(vii) The court below, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, dismissed Ext.P3 application.

(viii) Ext.P6 is patently erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

4. Heard; Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.V Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent/State and Sri.Salil Narayanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

5. Sri.M.Sasindran reiterated the contentions in the original petition. He drew the attention of this Court to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘Code’) and the decision of this Court in Janaki Amma v. Krishnan [1978 KLT 463] and argued that although the court below had dismissed the suit on the finding that the suit is barred by law, the dismissal is essentially a rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. Thus, the court below has committed a mistake in dismissing the suit. Consequently, the court below should have allowed Ext.P3 application and refunded the court fee and legal benefit stamps under Section 70 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (in short, ‘Act’).

6. Sri.V.Manu drew the attention of this Court to Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code and contended that only when it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by law, the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code gets attracted; otherwise, the courts are obliged to proceed under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code, frame issues and then determine the suit. If the court proceeds under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code, then a decree must be drawn as contemplated under Section 33 of the Code. Once a decree is passed, it is appealable under Section 96 of the Code. He placed reliance on the decision in Thulaseedharan P.C. v. Renie Fernandez and Another [2022 (4) KHC 417], wherein a Division Bench of this Court has laid down the law on the above-argued lines. He further argued that once the court completes the adjudicatory process, a party is precluded from aspiring for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fees. The court below has rightly passed Ext.P6 order, which is justifiable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the original petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Sri.Salil Narayanan endorsed and supported the submission of Sri.V.Manu. He argued that it was up to the petitioner to have withdrawn the suit after the respondents had filed their written statement contending that the suit was not maintainable. Instead, the petitioner adopted a wait-and-watch policy. After the suit was dismissed, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fee, which is alien in law. The petitioner’s remedy is to file a right royal appeal challenging the decree, instead of resorting