Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia
CR NO.3428 of 2017 (O&M)
Rajinder Singh
v.
Jaswinder Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 07/12/2017}
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate.
Court Fee – Refund of – Out of Court Settlement – Even if plaintiff did not apply for refund, court should have invoked suo moto its power’s to direct refund of court fee.
Headnote:Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, S.21 – Refund of Court Fee – Compromise – Held; settlement between parties outside court – Compromise before National Lok Adalat – Plaintiff entitled to refund of court fee – Even if plaintiff did not apply for refund, court should have invoked suo moto its power’s to direct refund of court fee – This would be in keeping of alternate dispute resolution – Petition allowed – Court Fees Act, 1870, S.16.
Key Points: - The petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fee paid, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 read with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, where a compromise/settlement occurred before the National Lok Adalat (or through other ADR mechanisms) (!) (!) (!) . - The court reiterated that even if the plaintiff did not apply for a refund, the court should suo moto direct refund of court fee in cases of settlement/compromise, to encourage ADR mechanisms (!) (!) . - Section 21 provides that an award of Lok Adalat, when a compromise is arrived at, leads to refund of court-fee paid in such case as per the Court Fees Act (!) . - Section 16 allows refund of the fee when the parties are referred to ADR modes (including settlements under Section 89 CPC) and the plaintiff is entitled to receive back the full fee (!) . - The decision modifies an earlier order to grant the petitioner a certificate to receive back the full court fee from the Collector, acknowledging entitlement due to the compromise (!) . - The case cites prior judgments and authorities (Pardeep Sonawat, A. Sreeramaiah, Kamalamma) to support full refund on settlement irrespective of Section 89 CPC pathways (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court/High Court notes that the object of Section 89 CPC and ADR is to encourage settlements, and refunds should not be denied on technical grounds (!) (!) . - The revision petition is allowed, directing refund of the court fee to the petitioner and issuance of a certificate to receive the amount (!) .
What is the entitlement to refund of court fee where a dispute is settled outside the court or before Lok Adalat?
What is the effect of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 in relation to refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
What are the circumstances under which the court should suo moto grant a refund of court fee despite lack of an application by the plaintiff?
Mr. B.S. Walia, J.(Oral).:- Despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. The matter pertains to rejection of the claim seeking refund of court fee on account of compromise between the parties. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to adjourn the case.
2. Learned counsel contends that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 19.12.2013 against Defendants-respondents on 17.12.2014 and paid Court fee of Rs. 3,05,893/-. Eventually the matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat and the same was dismissed as withdrawn in view of compromise having been arrived at between the parties before the National Lok Adalat, Barnala on 11.02.2017. Learned Counsel further contends that although the compromise before the National Lok Adalat was due to intervention by the Presiding Officer but no mention to that effect or for refund of court fee was recorded in the order dated 11.02.2017 (Annexure P1).
3. Learned counsel contends that where the dispute between the parties has been settled or compromised outside the Court e.g. before the Lok Adalat, the plaintiff is entitled as a matter of right for refund of the entire court fee paid by him in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act read with Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 are reproduced as under:-
Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
“21. Award of Lok Adalat-
(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7-1870).”
Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870
“16. Refund of fee- Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civl Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), 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.
4. Learned counsel contends that application dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure P3) was wrongly rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Barnala vide order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P2) on the ground that there was no order regarding refund of court fee by the learned Lok Adalat. Learned counsel contends that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Pardeep Sonawat vs. Satish Prakash- 2015 AIR (Punjab) 130 in the light of decision in A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore and Anr., 2007(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 374 : 2007 [2] Civil Court Cases 0695 wherein a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court interpreting the provisions of Section 89 of the CPC in relation to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act observed as under :-
“6. As such, we are of the opinion that if the parties come forward to settle their dispute before the Court itself, they should not be denied of refund of Full Court Fees on the ground that they have not settled the dispute before any of the four methods provided under section 89 of CPC. The object behind section 89 is to encourage the parties to arrive at settlement and if that object is sought to be achieved by means of referring the matter to any of the four methods mentioned in section 89, then even the settlement arrived at the earliest stage before the Court would also be one of the method provided under section 89 sub-section (1). Hence, we feel it as just and appropriate to order for full refund of Court Fees in the case of parties settling their dispute before the Court as well as before any of the Forum mentioned under Section 89 of the CPC. No party should be discriminated in the
