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
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.