IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104+291)

RSA-2515-2019 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION:- 11.03.2025 OM PAL … APPELLANT VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR … RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Parth Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

CM- 9314 -C-2024

1. Application is allowed.

2. Affidavit dated 06.09.2024 filed by the respondent is taken on record as Annexure R-1.

CM-9674-C-2024 & CM-10107-C-2024

3. Both these applications have been separately filed by appellant and respondent for issuance of direction to release the court fee affixed at the time of filing of the appeal as well as the suit.

4. Counsel for the parties submit that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise dated 29.11.2023, Annexure A-1, has been entered into. Counsel submit that as the dispute has been settled out of Court, parties are entitled to the refund of the requisite fee affixed by them under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short “the Act”). Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surender Kumar Versus Hans Raj Mandi, 2021 (2) RCR (Civil) 851.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submission.

6. Section 16 of the Act provides thus:-

“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 authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.”

7. A plain reading of the above reproduced statutory provision shows that a plaintiff would be entitled to the refund of the court fee on a reference by the Court to any of the methods of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) specified under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”). Section 16, ibid applies when parties are able to reach at a settlement after a reference to ADR. The objective behind the statutory provision is to encourage the parties to resort to the alternate methods of dispute resolution, rather than seek adjudication of the disputes by Courts, even though they may have approach the Court for relief. The provision is meant to support the adjudication of disputes through the medium of ADR. A litigant is entitled to refund only when he arrives at a final settlement without the process of the Court through the alternate methods, but it is not intended to apply when the matter has been resolved by the parties outside the Court through private negotiation. Refund of court fee is not permitted where settlement has been reached through private settlement without taking recourse to Section 89 of the Code.

8. In Jage Ram Versus Ved Kaur and others, (SLP (C) No.723/2023, decided on 28.01.2025) arising out of an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Supreme Court observed as under:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The second appeal was decided by the High Court in terms of the settlement, a signed copy of which was produced before it.

3. Since the appeal was decided in terms of the settlement and not on merits, the petitioner prayed to refund the court fees paid by him in the trial Court as well as in the First Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court.

4. In the second appeal, the petitioner had paid Rs.29,053/-

(Rupees Twenty-Nine Thousand Fifty-Three only).

5. The High Court by the impugned order has rejected the prayer so made by the petitioner by holding that no ground for refund has been made out.

6. The refund of court fees is permissible only if the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a settlement