Back
2003(1) JLJ 35
Deepak Verma and A.K. Gohil, JJ.
Ram Lal and others v. State of M.P. and others
M.C.C. No. 255 of 2001; Decided on 14.5.2002.
This application has been filed under S. 151, CPC for refund of court-fee paid by the petitioners in earlier set of litigation, which was at their instance. [Para 2
During the pendency of the second round of litigation in the High Court, at a subsequent stage, all the land owners paid ad valorem court-fees on the memo of appeals. They did not press the interlocutory applications filed by them either for refund of the court-fees or for adjustment of the came in the subsequent appeals. [Para 5
After deciding the first appeals on merits, now the petitioners have filed applications under S. 151, CPC for refund of the coul1-fees which was paid by them in the earlier set of litigations when the matter was remanded to the Reference Court, for the purposes of proving the unproved sale-deeds. [Para 6
Held: The petitioners had waived their right to claim refund as even though they had filed applications for refund of the court-fees, but they never made any prayer in this regard when the appeals of the petitioners along with other connected appeals were being heard. If the petitioners were really interested either for refund of the court-fees or for adjustment of the same, then they should have argued the applications filed by them in this regard. Not having done so, we are of the considered opinion that this act of the petitioners would amount to waiver of their right to claim court-fees. [Para 8
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 Rr. 23 and 23A -- distinction between -- under R. 23 the appeal is disposed of on preliminary point -- under R. 23A appeal is not so disposed of but decree is reversed and retrial is ordered.
Order 41, Rule 23 CPC contemplates "where a matter is disposed of on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal" whereas O. 41, R. 23A deals with remand in other cases. It contemplates "where the case has been disposed of otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary", Thus, the distinguishing feature in both the Rules is that in earlier Rule the matter is disposed of on preliminary point, whereas in the latter Rule it is decided otherwise than on a preliminary point. [Para 10
The Reference Court had been directed to decide the matter afresh on the new evidence that was to be led by the parties. A full retrial was directed to be held as per the remand. In our considered opinion such a remand would not be a remand under O.41, R. 23, CPC but would be a remand only under O.41, R. 23A, CPC. AIR 1969 All. 142 (FB) distinguished. [Para 11
(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 55 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 77 -- certified copy of sale-deed -- may be adduced in evidence without proof of its execution. 1994 AIR SCW 1552 and 1995 AIR SCW 871 held overruled. AIR 2001 SC 1117 followed. [Para 11
(4) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 13 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 23A -- remand under R. 23A -- refund of court-fees cannot be claimed. 1983 JLJ 356 and 1989(II) MPWN 174 relied on. [Para 13
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 151, O. 41 Rr. 23 mid 23A -- Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 13 -- provisions of O. 41 Rr. 23 or 23A involved -- refund of court-fees cannot be sought under S. 151. AIR 1956 Nag. 281 distinguished. [Para 15
(6) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 13 -- refund of court-fees -- principle.
The principle with regard to refund of court-fees is that when there is no legal obligation to pay the court-fees the Court orders, in substance, the law to be carried out, and not to increase the liability upon the litigant. AIR 1953 Nag. 330 relied on. [Para 16
(7) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 13 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 23A -- petitioners availed great advantage of remand -- compensation adequately enhanced after sale deeds were proved due to remand -- should not ask for refund of court-fees. [Para 17
¼1½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 13 && U;k;ky; Qhl dk izfrnk; && izfrnk; vFkok lek;kstu dk vf/kdkj eqdnesckth esa tks mudh izsj.kk ij gqbZ Fkh] ;kphx.k }kjk lanÙk U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; ds fy, fl-iz-la- dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu Qkby fd;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 2 ;g vkosnu] iwoZrj eqdnesckth esa tks mudh izsj.kk ij gqbZ Fkh] ;kphx.k }kjk lanÙk U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; ds fy, fl-iz-la- dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu Qkby fd;k x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 2 eqdnesckth ds nwljs nkSj ds nkSjku mPp U;k;ky; esa i‘pkr~orhZ izØe ij] Hkwfe ds lHkh Lokfe;ksa us vihy ds Kkiu ij ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl lanÙk dh FkhA i‘pkr~orhZ vihyksa esa] muds }kjk ;k rks U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; ds fy, vFkok mlds lek;kstu ds fy, fd, x, varoZrhZ vkosnuksa ij mUgksaus cy ugha fn;kA ¿ iSjk 5 izFke vihysa xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf‘pr gks tkus ij vc ;kphx.k us fl-iz-la- dh /kkjk 151 ds v/khu ml U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS tks muds }kjk iwoZrj eqdnesckth esa lanÙk dh xbZ Fkh tc ekeyk uklkfcr foØ; foys[k lkfcr fd, tkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, funsZ‘k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA ¿ iSjk 6 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kphx.k us izfrnk; dk nkok djus ds vf/kdkj dk vf/kR;tu dj fn;k Fkk D;ksafd ;|fi mUgksaus U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; ds fy, vkosnu Qkby fd, Fks] fdarq vU; lac) vihyksa ds lkFk tc ;kphx.k dh vihysa lquh tk jgh Fkha] mUgksaus bl ckjs esa dHkh dksbZ izkFkZuk ugha dhA ;fn ;kphx.k dh U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; vFkok mlds lek;kstu ds fy, okLro esa :fp Fkh] rc mUgsa bl ckjs esa muds }kjk Qkby fd, x, vkosnuksa ij cgl djk pkfg, FkhA ,slk ugha fd;k tkus ls] gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd ;kphx.k dk dk;Z] U;k;ky; Qhl ds nkos dks vius vf/kdkj ds vf/kR;tu dh dksfV dk gksxkA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 23 rFkk 23d && nksuksa esa izHksn && fu- 23 ds v/khu vihy dk fuiVkjk izkjafHkd ckr ij ls fd;k tkrk gS && fu- 23d ds v/khu vihy dk fuiVkjk bl izdkj ugha fd;k tkrk fdarq fMØh myVh tkrh gS rFkk iqufoZpkj.k vkfn"V fd;k tkrk gSA fl-iz-la- ds vkns‘k 41] fu;e 23 esa ^^tgk¡ fdlh ekeys dk fuiVkjk fdlh izkjafHkd ckr ij dj fn;k tkrk gS vkSj vihy esa fMØh myV nh tkrh gS** vuq/;kr gS tcfd vk- 41 fu- 23d vU; n‘kkvksa esa izfrizs"k.k ds ckjs esa gSA blesa vuq/;kr gS] ^^tgk¡ ekeys dk fuiVkjk fdlh izkjafHkd ckr ij djus ls vU;Fkk dj fn;k x;k gS vkSj fMØh vihy esa myV nh xbZ gS vkSj iqufoZpkj.k vko‘;d le>k x;k gS**A bl izdkj] nksuksa fu;eksa dk izHksnd oSf‘k"V; ;g gS fd iwoZrj fu;e esa ekeys dk fuiVkjk fdlh izkjafHkd ckr ij fd;k tkrk gS tcfd i‘pkr~orhZ fu;e esa mldk fofu‘p; fdlh izkjafHkd ckr ls vU;Fkk ij ls fd;k tkrk gSA ¿ iSjk 10 funsZ‘k U;k;ky; dks ekeyk u, lk{; ij ls u, fljs ls fofuf‘pr fd, tkus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k Fkk tks i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr fd;k tkuk FkkA izfrizs"k.k ds vuqlkj] iwjk iqufoZpkj.k fd;k tkuk vkfn"V fd;k x;k FkkA gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa ,slk izfrizs"k.k fl-iz-la- ds vk- 41 fu- 23 ds v/khu izfrizs"k.k ugha gksxk fdarq og dsoy fl-iz-la- ds vk- 41 fu- 23d ds v/khu izfrizs"k.k gksxkA , vkb vkj 1969 bykgkckn 142 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼3½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 55 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 77 && foØ; foys[k dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi && mlds fu"iknu ds lcwr ds fcuk lk{; esa is‘k dh tk ldrh gSA 1994 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 152 rFkk 1995 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 871 myVk x;k vfHkfu/kkZfjrA , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 1117 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼4½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 13 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 23d && fu- 23d ds v/khu izfrizs"k.k && U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; dk nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1983 ts ,y ts 356 rFkk 1989¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 174 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13 ¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 151] vk- 41 fu- 23 rFkk 23d && U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 13 && vk- 41 fu- 23 vFkok 23d ds mica/k varxZzLr && /kkjk 151 ds v/khu U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; dh bZIlk ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1956 ukxiqj 281 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 15 ¼6½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 13 && U;k;ky; Qhl dk izfrnk; fl)karA U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; ds ckjs esa fl)kar gS fd U;k;ky; ¼lank; dk½ vkns‘k nsrk gS tcfd U;k;ky; Qhl ds lank; dk dksbZ fof/kd nkf;Ro ugha gS] okLrfod vFkZ esa] fof/k dk vuqikyu djus ds fy,] eqdnesckt dk nkf;Ro c<+kus ds fy, ughaA , vkb vkj 1953 ukxiqj 330 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 16 ¼7½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 13 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 23d && ;kphx.k us izfrizs"k.k dk vf/kd ykHk mBk;k && izfrizs"k.k ds dkj.k foØ; foys[k lkfcr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ izfrdj i;kZIr :i ls c<+k;k x;k && U;k;ky; Qhl ds izfrnk; dh bZIlk ugha dh tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 17
1. This order shall also govern disposal of connected matters, the details of which have been given in the Annexure appended to this order.
2. This application has been filed under S. 151, CPC for refund of court-fee paid by the petitioners in earlier set of litigation, which was at their instance.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this application are mentioned in a nut-shell as under : The case has a long and chequered history. Petitioner's land was sought to be acquired for setting up of Centre for Advance Technology (CAT) and wholesale fruit market. Notifications under Ss. 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. The parties appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and submitted their objections. Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in favour of the land owners. Being dissatisfied with the award, reference was made to the civil Court. The civil Court passed an ward enhancing the amount of compensation, but still being dissatisfied, the petitioners as land owners preferred first appeals or cross-appeals in the appeals preferred by CAT against the same award. There were two batches of appeals. Both batches of appeals were decided by different Division Benches of this Court, on 11.5.1999 and on 18.10.2000. The matters were remanded to the Reference Court as the sale deeds on which reliance was placed by the parties in the award were not proved either by examining vendor, vendee or attesting witnesses of the same. This remand had become necessary on account of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 305 (P. Ram Reddi and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad). While remanding the matter to the Reference Court, following order came to be passed:
"Reference Court award is set aside. Each matter shall be remitted to respective Reference Court for fresh consideration and disposal under law. Parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence and to prove the unproved sale deed borne by record, if they can."
4. It appears that at that time also the petitioners made a prayer for refund of the court-fees, but the Court directed as under:
"At this stage appellant's counsel, prayed for refund of court-fees deposited by them for maintaining these appeals. Consideration on the prayer is deferred leaving appellants free to seek adjustment of paid court-fees in the event they are advised to take fresh appeals against the new Award passed by reference Court or to ask for refund otherwise."
5. After the aforesaid remand to the Reference Court, a fresh award came to be passed. Same was again challenged by parties by filing first appeals in the High Court. In the second round of litigation, the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners was enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- per acre as awarded by the Reference Court to Rs. 1 lac per acre in the first appeals, by the High Court. The said first appears were disposed of on 9.11.2001. Main judgment in the said appeals was passed in F.A. No. 360 of 2000. All other connected appeals also stood disposed of by the said common order. In these appeals also, the petitioners had initially filed the appeals without payment of requisite court-fees, but by filing an application seeking exemption from payment of court-fees on the ground that court-fees paid, in earlier set of appeals, should be given adjustment. However, during the pendency of the second round of litigation in the High Court, at a subsequent stage all the land owners paid ad valorem court-fees on the memo of appeals. They did not press the interlocutory applications filed by them either for refund of the court-fees or for adjustment of the same in the subsequent appeals.
6. After deciding the first appeals on merits, now the petitioners have filed applications under S. 151, CPC for refund of the court-fees which was paid by them in the earlier set of litigations when the matte was remanded to the Reference Court, for the purposes of proving the unproved sale-deeds.
7. W
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
