IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
V.J. Thomas S/o.C.G. Joseph - Appellant
Versus
Sunny S/o.Pathrose - Respondent
RFA NO. 426 OF 2014
Decided On : 14-01-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 - Sections 69 and 69A - Appeal withdrawn - The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal without affecting the right to file a fresh appeal, which was not permitted as it constitutes abandonment of the appeal. The court ruled that a unilateral withdrawal does not entitle the appellant to a refund of court fees. (Paras 4 , 5 , 15 ) (B) Court Fees - Refund - The court clarified that refund of court fees is permissible only in cases of compromise or when suits are decided on admissions, and not for unilateral withdrawals. (Paras 10 , 14 )
Facts of the case: The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal challenging a judgment and decree, but later sought to withdraw the appeal and requested a refund of court fees. The court examined the legal provisions regarding court fee refunds.
Findings of Court: The court found that the withdrawal of the appeal was a unilateral act and did not qualify for a refund of court fees under the relevant provisions.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant could withdraw the appeal without affecting the right to file a fresh appeal and whether a refund of court fees was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that withdrawing an appeal is an abandonment and does not protect the right to file a fresh appeal. Furthermore, unilateral withdrawals do not qualify for court fee refunds under the applicable statutes.
Result: Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.' hereinafter), challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2014 in O.S.No.149/2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor.
2. Today, when this matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal is not intended to be proceeded and I.A.No.1/2024 to withdraw this appeal and I.A.No.2/2024 to refund the court fee have been filed. The learned counsel pressed for withdrawing the appeal as sought for in the petitions.
3. In view of the above submission, the questions arise for consideration are as under;
(1) Whether I.A.No.1/2024 is liable to be allowed by granting permission to withdraw the suit, without affecting the right of the appeal to file fresh RFA, if required?
(2) Whether I.A.No.2/2024 is liable to be allowed so as to grant refund of court fee in view of withdrawal of this appeal?
4. Point No.1:- I.A.No.1/2024 has been filed by the appellant to withdraw the appeal without affecting his right to file fresh RFA, if required. In fact, the withdrawal sought for in this petition is without affecting the right of the appellant to file a fresh RFA if required cannot be allowed as such. Withdrawing an appeal is abandoning the appeal, where the right to file fresh appeal could not be protected. Therefore, the prayer can be allowed without granting the said relief.
5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 stands allowed and this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and the withdrawal has the effect of abandoning the appeal and the right of appeal.
6. Point No.2:- I.A.No.2/2024 is a petition filed to refund Rs.36,050/-, full court fee paid by the appellant in the appeal in view of withdrawal.
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant is a person aged 69 years and taking a lenient view in consideration of the withdrawal of this appeal, Rs.36,050/- paid as court fee may be refunded. Even though the learned counsel was asked to justify the enabling provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which permits refund of court fee when an appeal is withdrawn unilaterally, his submission is confined to leniency and compassion and not on legal substratum.
8. In this context, the question arises for consideration is whether an appellant who voluntarily withdraws an appeal is entitled for the refund of the court fee he had paid?
9. Section 69 and Section 69A of Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (for short 'the KCFSV Act' hereinafter), 1959 deal with refund of court fee in cases of compromise or when the suit is decided on the admission of the parties and refund of court-fee in case where the dispute is settled under Section 89 of the C.P.C.
10. Section 69 of the KCFSV Act provides as under;
Provided that no refund shall be ordered where only one-tenth of the amount of fee on plaint as required by Section 4A or one- third of the amount of fee on memorandum of appeal as required by Section 52 has been paid by the parties.
11. Section 69A of the KCFSV Act introduced with effect from 01.04.2013 provides as under;
Noorudheen v. Muhammed Najmal 2021 (4) KHC 257 : 2021 (4) KLT 561
Withdrawal of an appeal constitutes abandonment, and unilateral withdrawal does not entitle the appellant to a refund of court fees under the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
Point of law :Recall of compromise decree - Application for recalling of a compromise decree has to be filed only before the Court that had recorded the compromise in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) o....
The court lacks power to refund court fees if withdrawn appeals do not meet statutory refund conditions under applicable acts.
Settlement between parties under Section 89 CPC allows withdrawal of appeal.
Entitlement to court fee refund upon appeal withdrawal due to out-of-court settlement per relevant statutes.
Court dismisses appeal as withdrawn following parties' settlement and orders court fee refund.
Section 70 of the Act comes into play only when there is no adjudicatory process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.