JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

“Discourage litigation, persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the normal winner is often a real looser - in fees, expenses and time.”

Abraham Lincoln

1. To achieve the object of reducing the pendency of cases through amicable settlement between the parties, Section 89 was inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). Whenever the matters are settled by the parties to the litigation by any of the mode contained under Section 89 of CPC, the plaintiff can claim certificate under Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961) to receive back the full amount of court fees paid in respect of his plaint.

2. The purpose of Section 65-B of the Act of 1961 is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their litigation in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement like withdrawal of the suit.

3. The legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent have decided to withdraw the suit filed by the plaintiff at this appellate stage and the parties to the appeal are claiming the refund of the court fees paid by them. This is a short issue involved in this appeal.

4. Instant civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant defendant under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur (for short ‘the Court below’) by which the suit for specific performance and cancellation of gift deed filed by the plaintiffs respondents was decreed.

5. During the pendency of this appeal, legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent have entered into a compromise with defendant No. 2.

6. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent have submitted an application (I.A. No. 1/2022) under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the suit.

7. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the suit has been withdrawn on the basis of compromise, so appropriate orders may be passed for refund of court fees to the respective parties in view of the provision contained under Section 65B of the Act of 1961. For ready reference, Section 65B of the Act of 1961 is reproduced as under:

“65B. Refund of Fee - Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) and the matter is settled by one of the modes provided under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.”

8. Counsel for the parties placed reliance on a judgment passed by this court in the case of Chandresh Agrawal vs. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City and Bhavesh Maroo, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7915/2011 decided on 06.07.2011, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued directions to the Court below to refund the court fee as per the provisions contained under Section 65B of the Act of 1961.

9. Counsel for the parties further placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam and Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3063-3064 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has also issued directions for refund of the court fee keeping in view the provisions contained under Section 89 of CPC.

10. In the case of M.C. Subramaniam (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has de