In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that even if the matter is settled by the parties outside the Court without invoking the provisions of section 89 CPC, the appellant while withdrawing his first appeal, is entitled to the refund of full Court fees as provided under section 16 of the Court Fees. {Para 7} Act, 1870.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FIRST APPEAL No. 222 of 2015
DAYARAM BALARAM PATEL, Vs SMT. LAXMI AGRAWAL
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 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
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 they get the same settled between themselves without
the intervention of any Arbitrator/ Mediator/ Conciliators or in Lok Adalat etc., and
without invoking the provisions of S. 89, Civil Procedure Code, the fact remains that they
get their dispute settled without the intervention of the court. If they get their dispute settled
by invoking S. 89, C.P.C, in that event the State may have to incur some expenditure but,
if they get their dispute settled between themselves without the intervention of the Court or
anyone else, such as arbitrator/mediator etc., the State would not be incurring any
expenditure. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that whether the parties to a
litigation get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89, C.P.C or they get the same
settled between themselves without invoking S. 89, Civil Procedure Code, the party paying
Court Fees in respect thereof should be entitled to the refund of full Court Fees as
provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, the contention of the
learned Government Pleader that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case does not
deserve acceptance."
6 . In the case of PRADEEP SONAWAT VERSUS SATISH PRAKASH @ SATISH
CHANDRA 2015(2) Civil Court Cases 52 the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as
under :-
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
â€oe16. Going a step further, it is felt that whether the compromise is with the persuasion of
the Court or amongst the parties by themselves in terms of Section 89 CPC or otherwise,
invocation of provision of Section 16 of the Act should be made in all cases so that
settlements by way of alternative dispute resolution mechanism are encouraged.
17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts, merely because the matter has not been settled
in Lok Adalat, as has been observed by the lower Court while dismissing the application of
the plaintiff-petitioner, invocation to Section 16 of the Act should not have been refused.â€
7. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that even if the
matter is settled by the parties outside the Court without invoking the provisions
of section 89 CPC, the appellant while withdrawing his first appeal, is entitled to
the refund of full Court fees as provided under section 16 of the Court Fees
Act, 1870.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Registry of this Court is directed
to issue certificate regarding refund of Court fees of Rs.52,750/- authorising the
appellant-Dayaram to receive back the full amount of the court fee paid in
respect of first appeal, from the Collector.
9. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of.
sh
3
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment