Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1466 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. Kuljit Singh and Brother

2014-10-30

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The question involved in this revision petition is as to "whether the court fee appended with the plaint in a suit for recovery could be refunded to the plaintiff if the suit is disposed of on the basis of an out-of-court compromise arrived at between the parties"? 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.09.2014, dismissing his application for refund of the court fee, appended with the plaint of the suit for recovery, on the ground that the suit has been disposed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. In short, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,76,750/- while affixing the court fee of Rs. 10,582/-. On 23.09.2014, the plaintiff suffered the following statement:- "Stated that I have effected a compromise with the defendants in the present case and the defendants in the other civil suit entitled Swaran Singh v. M/s Kuljit Singh & others bearing registration Nos. CS 401/2013 and complaint case entitled Swaran Singh v. Sukhchain Singh, bearing registration No. COMA 114/13 in the lump sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- (Three Lakhs & Twenty Five Thousand Ony), which I have received from Sukhchain Singh, defendnat/accused in the court today. So I do not want to proceed with the said cases. The same may be dismissed as compromised and withdrawn." 4. The plaintiff then filed an application for refund of the court fee but the said application has been dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order dated 25.09.2014, which reads as under :- "Report of Ahlmad received and perused, according to which the above said case has been dismissed as withdrawn being compromised between the parties on 23.09.2014. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for applicant on application for refund of court fee heard. Perusal of available record shows that suit has already been dismissed as withdrawn being compromised as per statement of applicant Swaran Singh recorded in this case on 23.09.2014. However, applicant Swaran Singh has not recorded any statement regarding withdrawal of the court fee nor he requested the court to put up the file before the Lok Adalat in this regard. Since, the applicant has not recorded any statement regarding refund of court fee in his statement recorded on 23.09.2014 nor the case was withdrawn in the Lok Adalat, as such application under consideration is hereby dismissed. Since, the applicant has not recorded any statement regarding refund of court fee in his statement recorded on 23.09.2014 nor the case was withdrawn in the Lok Adalat, as such application under consideration is hereby dismissed. Papers be consigned to the record room being part of the main file." 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the suit has been disposed of on the basis of compromise, therefore, in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act"), inserted by Section 46 of the Act of 1999, the plaintiff is 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 the plaint. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case ofTarun Juneja and others v. Hukam Singh, Civil Revision No. 874 of 2009, decided on 15.09.2009, and also a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case ofMool Singh v. Abdul Jabbar, Civil Writ Petition No. 11356/2011, decided on 28.11.2011. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to refer to Section 16 of the Act, which reads 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 (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." 8. A bare reading of Section 16 of the Act provides that where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any of the mode of settlement or dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein- after referred to as the "CPC") and a settlement is arrived at, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the court fee on the basis of a certificate to be issued by the Court. 9. 9. In the present case, however, neither the dispute was referred by the Court for the compromise nor the compromise is provided as a mode of settlement in Section 89 of the CPC. 10. However, in Tarun Juneja's case (supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement and on persuasion of the Lok Adalat, the parties opted to make efforts for compromise. It has been specifically noticed in the said judgment that "undisputedly, on account of persuasion of the Lok Adalat the sale deed was agreed to be got registered for which the parties were directed to appear before the Sub-Registrar. Notwithstanding the fact that the parties could not appear on the given date but they appeared on the extended date and sale deed was executed and lastly they while appearing before the Lok Adalat stated that they have compromised the matter". This Court also referred to Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act of 1987") in which it is provided that "every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such cases shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act 1870 (7 of 1870)". 11. In this background, the Court had observed that the conjoint reading of the Act of 1987 concludes that the compromise which is arrived at under the seal of the Lok Adalat or where the Lok Adalat passes specific order on the basis of the compromise between the parties, the plaintiff would be entitled to the refund of the court fee de hors the fact that the compromise is also conspicuous by its absence in Section 89 of the CPC. 12. In the present case, the trial Court has also observed in the impugned order that the matter has not been settled between the parties before the Lok Adalat, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the refund of the court fee. 13. 12. In the present case, the trial Court has also observed in the impugned order that the matter has not been settled between the parties before the Lok Adalat, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the refund of the court fee. 13. Accordingly, the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in Tarun Juneja's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. As regards the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Mool Singh's case (supra), Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dismissed the application for refund of the court fee on the basis of a compromise between the parties. This order was challenged by way of a writ petition in which the petitioner had referred to an amendment made in the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 in which new Section 65B was added, which also provides that "where the Court refers the parties to a suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) and the matter is settled by one for the modes provided under Sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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". 15. The said Court, while relying upon an earlier judgment passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 452/2009 titled as "Arvind Deval v. Mool Singh Deval" in which also Section 16 of the Act was interpreted, has held that the purpose of the Legislature for enacting the said provision is to bring finality to the litigation and thus, the trial Court should not have refused to return the court fee. 16. I most humbly and respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Mool Singh's case (supra) because neither Section 89 of the CPC talks of an out- of-court compromise as a mode of settlement of dispute nor the present case has been decided by the Lok Adalat in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act of 1987. 17. 17. If the parties in the present case had opted for an out-of-court compromise which was brought to the notice of the Court for the purpose of withdrawal of the suit, it was at the peril of the plaintiff who had to loose the amount of the court fee appended with the plaint, affixed while seeking recovery of a particular amount. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question posed in the beginning of the judgment is answered accordingly and the revision petition is hereby dismissed.