Parties withdrawing suits based on compromise are entitled to a refund of court fees under Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, promoting amicable dispute resolution.

Order

24/01/2024

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

a) the impugned order dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure- 3) may be held as arbitrary, against the law, illegal and perverse and accordingly be quashed and set aside and:

b) the court fees paid in suit before trial court of 6,72,672/- may be refunded to plaintiff and petitioner may entitled to a certificate from court authorising him to received back the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.

c) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of petitioner.

2. By way of filing this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.13, Jaipur Metro Jaipur by which the prayer made by the petitioner for refund of Court fee has been declined.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for specific performance of agreement was submitted by the petitioner against the defendants wherein compromise taken place between the parties on 18.12.2012 and on the basis of the compromise the suit was withdrawn on 28.01.2013. Counsel submits that when the application seeking permission for withdrawal of the suit was submitted on 18.12.2012, a further prayer was made in the said application for refund of the Court fee deposited by the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. Counsel submits that the learned trial Judge has allowed the petitioner to withdraw the suit on the basis of the compromise but has refused to refund the Court fee without recording any justified reason. Counsel submits that under the provisions contained under Section 65-B of the The Rajasthan Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’), the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the Court fees. In support of his contentions, he has place reliance upon the following judgments:

1. High Court of Judicature of Madras rep. by its Registrar General vs M.C. Subramaniam & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3063/2021.

2.Majid Khan vs. Mijjaj and Ors. (SB Civil First Appeal No.742/2017).

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants does not raise any objection and supported the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. This fact is not in dispute that a suit for specific performance of agreement was submitted by the plaintiff petitioner against the defendants respondents before the Court of Additional District Judge No.13, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur wherein a compromise taken place between the parties on 18.12.2012 and on the basis of the said compromise the plaintiff petitioner has withdrawn the suit.

7. Before seeking permission to withdraw the suit, an application was submitted on 18.12.2012 for granting permission to withdraw the suit and at the same time a request was also made for refund of the Court fees deposited by the petitioner at the time of institution of the suit. Learned trial Court partly allowed the application and granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit but declined to refund the Court fees deposited by the petitioner. The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by this Court while deciding the case of Majid Khan (supra) by giving reference of Section 65-B of the Act of 1961 and after referring several judgments by the Co- ordinate Bench and by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The identical issue raised in the case of Majid Khan (supra) has been disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 22.07.2022 with the following observations and directions:

“Discourage litigation, persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the normal winner is often a real looser - in fees, expenses, and time.”

Abraham Lincoln.

To achieve the object of reducing the pend