Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2338 (RAJ)

Prakash v. Saroj Devi

2021-12-15

SUDESH BANSAL

body2021
ORDER 1. This first appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Hanumangarh passed in Original Civil Suit No.126/2016, whereby and where under, the civil suit for specific performance filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed. 2. The first appeal was admitted for hearing on 23.03.2021 and during course of hearing, execution of the impugned decree was stayed. 3. The appellant has filed an application (No.1/21) purportedly under Section 151 CPC, alleging inter-alia that appellant and respondent have settled their dispute out of court, following the spirit of Lok Adalat. 4. It has been prayed that in view of above, the first appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn and the court fees of Rs.20,380/-paid by the appellant in first appeal may be refunded. 5. The counsel appearing for respondent does not opposes the application. However, since appeal was admitted for hearing and stay was granted but on seeing withdrawing of appeal at the stage of hearing on the point of refund of court fee, issue is being examined. 6. In order to seeking refund of court fees, after settlement of dispute out of court, a reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. M.C. Subramaniam & Ors. reported in 2021 (3) SCC 560 . 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of The High Court of Judicature of Madras (supra) considered the provisions of Section 69-A of the Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 in context to Section 89 CPC for refund of court fees to the party after settlement of dispute by their own, out of court, without adopting any mode of settlement as provided under Section 89 CPC. The provision of Section 69-A of the Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 reads as under: ' 69 A. Refund on settlement of disputes under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure.- Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), the fee paid shall be refunded upon such reference." The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "21. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of out of court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee." 8. In State of Rajasthan, The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 was amended and Section 65-B has been added for refund of fee, which is para-material to the provision of Section 69-A of the Madras Court-Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1958. 9. Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1965 deals with the refund of fees, where the parties have settled their dispute under anyone of the mode given in Section 89 CPC. The provision of Section 65(B) reads as under: "65-B. Refund of Fee.- Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908) and the matter is settled by one of the modes provided under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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." 10. Section 65-B of the Act of 1961 was taken into consideration by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.452/2009; Arvind Deval Vs. Mool Singh Deal and was interpreted in the following manner: "4. Section 65-B of the Act of 1961 was taken into consideration by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.452/2009; Arvind Deval Vs. Mool Singh Deal and was interpreted in the following manner: "4. It is true that Section 65-B ibid provides for refund of the Court Fee where the dispute between the parties to the suit is settled by one of the modes provided under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but then, the said provisions has been incorporated so as to encourage the amicable settlement between the parties out of the Court. Therefore, keeping in view, the spirit of Section 65-B ibid, in considered opinion of this Court, in the matters where the dispute is settled between the parties amicably without intervention of the Court also the full amount of court fee paid deserves to be refunded to the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. A certificate may be issued to the appellant authorising him to receive back from the Collector (Stamp), the full amount of fee paid in respect of the present appeal i.e. Rs.22,104/-" 11. The said judgment passed in case of Arvind Deval (supra) has further been followed by the High Court, in case of Mool Singh Vs. Abdul Jabbar; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11356/2011 vide order dated 28.11.2021 reported in 2012 (1) DNJ (Raj) 31. 12. The High Court has further followed the aforesaid judgments of Arvind Deval (supra) and Mool Singh (supra) in case of Mangi Lal Luhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2018 (3) RLW 2129 (Raj), where, the trial Court declined to refund the court fee even after compromise and settlement of dispute between the parties out of Court and withdrew of the suit, on the ground that compromise had happened between the parties outside the court. This Court observed that Section 65-B of the Act of 1961 clearly envisages the refund of the court fee, in the event of a compromise having arrived at between the parties. 13. The Karnataka High Court, in case of Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., reported in (2010) 1 AIR Kar. This Court observed that Section 65-B of the Act of 1961 clearly envisages the refund of the court fee, in the event of a compromise having arrived at between the parties. 13. The Karnataka High Court, in case of Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., reported in (2010) 1 AIR Kar. R 279 has observed that the parties who have agreed to settle their dispute without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC are even more deserving to the incentive for refund of court fees. 14. In the opinion of this Court and in view of aforesaid legal proposition of law, the provision of Section 65-B must be interpreted liberally, in a manner that would serve the object and purpose of incorporating this provision in the Statute by way of amendment. When it is amply clear that those parties who settle their dispute following any of the mode of settlement under Section 89, CPC are entitled for refund of their court fees, then other parties who settled their dispute privately by themselves without intervention of the Court or without resorting to the provision of Section 89 CPC, should not be given a differential treatment. The intention of Section 65-B is that whenever the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise or otherwise and are agreeable to withdraw the litigation in the spirit of their mutual settlement, they are entitled for refund of court fees. A differential treatment to the similarly situated persons, one who have settled their dispute by resorting the provision of Section 89 CPC and other who have settled their dispute privately by themselves without resorting to the mode of settlement under Section 89 CPC, would constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The very purpose of Act is to promote the parties to settle their dispute amicably, in order to lesson the burden of judicial courts. At least the parties, who have settled their dispute without intervention of court by their own, as an incentive the court fees may be allowed to be refunded. 15. The very purpose of Act is to promote the parties to settle their dispute amicably, in order to lesson the burden of judicial courts. At least the parties, who have settled their dispute without intervention of court by their own, as an incentive the court fees may be allowed to be refunded. 15. Thus, after following the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of firm opinion that when the parties have settled dispute by themselves outside court even without resorting to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute as refereed in Section 89 CPC and due to such settlement/compromise want to withdraw the suit or appeal, they are entitled for refund of the court fees. 16. Such proposition of law be followed by the trial Courts in respect of compromise in civil suits or other proceedings as well. 17. Accordingly, the application (No.1/21) is allowed. 18. The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. 19. The court fees of Rs. 20,380/- paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded. The Registry is directed to prepare a certificate for refund of court fees to the appellant. 20. The stay application and other applications pending, if any, are also disposed of. 21. Record of trial court be sent back.