IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
Dayaram – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Laxmi Agrawal – Respondent
First Appeal No. 222 of 2015
Decided On : 20-09-2022
Court Fees Act - Refund of Court Fees - The court considered the request for refund of court fees in light of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Fact of the Case:
Parties settled their dispute outside the Court after the execution of the impugned decree. Appellant/defendant seeks to withdraw the first appeal and requests a refund of the court fee paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the circumstances and the provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It found that the parties had settled their dispute and the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal, with no objection from the respondent.
Issues: Whether the court can order a refund of court fees in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for the refund of court fees in certain situations, and the settlement of the dispute between the parties.
Final Decision: The court ordered the refund of the court fees to the appellant/defendant in accordance with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A.No. 11120/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that after execution of impugned decree, parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and in pursuance of which, the appellant/defendant wants to withdraw his first appeal. In such circumstances, he prays that the court fee of Rs.52,750/- paid by him in the first appeal be refunded to the appellant, regarding which the respondent has no objection.
3. Now the question arises as to whether this Court, in the aforesaid circumstances, can pass order for refund of court fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 states as under :-
"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 Civil Procedure, 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. In the case of A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd. ILR 2006 Kar 4032, Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, held as follows:
"6. Considering the object behind the Amendment Act, 1999 inserting section 89 of CPC and also the insertion of Section 16, it is clear that the object of providing of refund of Full Court Fees, is to encourage the settlement of the disputes in terms of section 89 of CPC. In this case, the parties agreed for settlement in terms suggested by the Court and accordingly, they have settled their dispute outside the Court. The judicialsettlement is also one of the alternative method of settlement of the disputes. As such, in our considered view, in any settlement arrived in terms of section 89 of CPC including the judicial settlements at the intervention and on terms suggested by the Court, the appellant is entitled for refund of Full Court Fees, as otherwise, it would be meaningless if the provisions o fsection 16 are not applied for settlement of dispute by the parties under section 89. Section 89 does provide for settlement of dispute at any stage of the proceeding, whether it is by way of method referred to therein or by judicial settlement as contemplated under section 89 sub-section (1). 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 matter of refund of Court Fees mainly on the ground that they have settled the dispute at the earliest stage before the Court without recourse to any of the methods mentioned under section 89 of the CPC. Hence, appellant is entitled for refund of FullCourt Fees."
5 . Aforesaid view has been upheld by the Karnataka High Court, in Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd . 2010 (4) KCCR 3211 = AIR 2010 KarR 279 where, again referring to provisions of Section 89 of CPC and Section 16 of the Act, it was observed as under:
"7. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or any other proceeding get their dispute settled amicably throughArbitration or meditation or conciliation or in the Lok Adalat, by invoking provisions of Section 89, C.P.C, or they get the same settled between themsel
Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 allows for the refund of court fees in specific circumstances, including when parties settle their dispute outside the Court.
Refund of court fees is permitted under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act when disputes are settled outside of court, inclusive of all forms of settlements as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The judgment emphasizes the requirements for refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and highlights the legislative intent for settlement of cases by alternative dispute re....
Court fees should be refunded even when cases settle out of court, promoting private dispute resolution methods, which supports judicial efficiency.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that court fee can be refunded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside the Court, in line with the intention behi....
The judgment establishes the principle that Section 89 of CPC and Section 16 of Court Fees Act should be interpreted liberally to encourage out-of-court settlements and provide incentives for parties....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.