SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 1307

DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Dayaram – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Agrawal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shri. S.D. Gupta-Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri. R.N. Agnihotri-Advocate, for the Respondent.

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top