Upon remand, an appellant is not required to pay court fees again, as fees deposited in the appeal are sufficient for the original suit.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

ON THE ISSUE OF REFUND OF COURT FEES IN A CASE OF REMAND

1. Heard Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, for the appellants, Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the contesting defendant-respondent, Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

APPEAL AGAINST REJECTION OF PLAINT

2. The instant appeal arises out of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that despite earlier order of the trial Court, the plaintiff has failed to deposit the ad valorem Court fees.

PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THIS APPEAL

3. On 18.11.2024, following order was passed:

“1. A mention was made from the respondents side in the morning stating that the appeal may be allowed. Therefore, the Court has taken up the matter at 03:55 p.m.

2. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that for non-payment of Court fees pursuant to determination of issues framed in that regard, plaint was rejected and in the instant first appeal, the appellants have deposited the entire Court fees as determined by the trial Court, however, once the appeal is allowed and the plaint is revived, the appellants shall have to again deposit the Court fees and, therefore, the Court fees deposited in this first appeal be treated as Court fees in the suit.

3. Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents however, vehemently opposes this submission and submits that against the order passed by the trial Court deciding issues of valuation and Court fees, the plaintiff filed First Appeal From Order under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act, however, no order could be passed therein and, in the meantime, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and whatever Court fees has been deposited before the first appellate Court, that is the statutory requirement of law and, in no circumstances, the said Court fees can be treated as Court fees in the suit even if the appeal is allowed and the order and decree impugned therein are set aside

4. Both the learned counsel shall address the Court on this issue on the next date fixed.

5. List for final hearing on 17.12.2024 at 02:00 p.m.”

4. Learned counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, admitted for final hearing. In view of the limited controversy involved in this case, summoning the record of the trial Court is not deemed necessary.

5. Following point for determination is framed under Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C:

“Whether in a case where decision of the trial Court rejecting the plaint is reversed in Appeal, plaintiffs are required to again deposit Court fees before the trial Court after remand?”

SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS

6. Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the previous order of this Court and the objection raised by the other side, the point to be decided in this appeal revolves around Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1870”). The submission is that there being no requirement to deposit Court fees twice as the adjudication on merits has to be made by the trial Court, a certificate in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870 may be granted by this Court while disposing of the instant appeal. Reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandra Bhushan Misra v. Jayatri Devi, AIR 1969 All 142 (FB), wherein the reference was answered in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870. The said decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chandra Bhushan Misra, AIR 1980 SC 591. It is further urged that since plaint has been rejected by the trial Court on one of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure and since the matter has to be heard finally by the trial Court on all issues, the decision in this appeal would be in the nature of an order of remand