IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 46238 of 2025 M/S K.P. AWASTHY THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHRI K.P.

AWASTHY Versus GMR POWER AND URBAN INFRA LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prem Mahesh Francis and Shri Yash Soni - Advocates for the petitioner.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent No.3/Collector of Stamps, Katni (M.P.) to refund the court fees amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid in Case No. COMMS/9955/2023 (M/s K.P. Awasthy vs. GMR Power & Urban Infra Ltd. & Ors.). The petitioner is also seeking quashment of order dated 15.10.2024 passed in MJC- 123/2024 by VI District Judge, Katni (M.P.), whereby his prayer for refund of court fee has been dismissed.

Facts of the case, in short, are as under :-

1. The petitioner had initially filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,18,45,649.72/- against the defendants and paid fixed amount of court fees of Rs.1,50,000/. Since the dispute was of commercial nature, the said suit was transferred to the Commercial Court, Jabalpur for adjudication.

2. Vide order dated 19.02.2024, the learned Commercial Court, Jabalpur declined to entertain the suit due to lack of jurisdiction and returned the same to the petitioner vide order dated 19.02.2024. However, no order in respect of refund of Court fees was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Court of VI District Judge, Katni by way of MJC-123/2024, seeking refund of the court fees. The learned Court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 15.10.2024; hence, this writ petition before this Court.

Submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and respondent/State.

3. Shri Prem Mahesh Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner (plaintiff before the District Court, Katni) filed a money suit for recovery of Rs.1,18,45,649.72/-, but without adjudication of the said suit, the same was returned due to availability of arbitration clause in the purchase/work order. Since there was no adjudication on merits, therefore, the court fees is liable to be returned under Section 16 of The Court Fees Act, 1870. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Surendra Rathore vs. Vishwanath Bhasin & Another" passed in F.A. No. 1045/2019 on 13.03.2023.

4. Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the suit was not returned for settlement between the parties, but the Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction in view of presence of arbitration clause in the purchase/work order.

Therefore, the MJC-123/2024 has rightly been dismissed.

Heard.

5. Section 16 of the The Court Fees Act, 1870 deals with the refund of court fees to the parties to the suit. It provides that where the Court refers the parties to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Upon reference to the said suit for settlement of dispute, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back the court fees from Collector. Section 16 of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :-

"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 (5 of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorizing him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint."

6. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Pr