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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

FIRST APPEAL No. 222 of 2015

BETWEEN:-

DAYARAM S/O BALARAM PATEL, AGED ABOUT

51

YEARS, KAILVARAKALA

TEH.

KATNI

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(BY SHRI S.D. GUPTA-ADVOCATE )

AND

SMT. LAXMI AGRAWAL W/O SHRI PRAMOD

AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GURU

NANAK WARD KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI R.N. AGNIHOTRI-ADVOCATE )

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

following:

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."

1

Signed by: S HUSHMAT

HUSSAIN

Signing time: 9/22/2022

11:57:42 AM

Signature Not Verified

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 judicial settlement 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 f section 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 Full Court 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 through Arbitration or meditation or conciliation or in the Lok Adalat, by invoking

provisions of Section 89, C.P.C, or the

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 Back to top