Back
B.S.WALIA
Rajinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur – Respondent
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 (!) .
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 Eventually the matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat and the same was dismissed as withdrawn in view of compromise having been arrived at between the parties before the National Lok Adalat, Barnala on 11.02.2017.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 ent
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
