Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1462 (RAJ)

Prem Travels v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-01

NUPUR BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore prayed that record of the case may kindly be called for and after examining the same by an appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set-a-side the orders dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure-2) and 26.08.2020 (Annexure-4) application for refund of court fees filed by petitioner may kindly be allowed throughout." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan and challenged the bid issued by respondent No.5 as it was opened in favour of the respondent Amit Kumar wherein, the notices were issued to the defendants and the civil suit was kept pending for written statements. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with a request to refund back the court fees as incurred at the time of filing of the suit. There were no objection raised by defendants and the learned trial Court has allowed the application and the suit was disposed of as withdrawn but, thereafter, the trial Court vide order dated 22.07.2019, refused to refund the court fees incurred on plaint. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application under section 151 of CPC to refund the court fees in light of the order 23 CPC and section 13 of Court Fees Act, 1870. 3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2020 dismissed the said application without taking any cogent reasons, being aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with a prayer to refund the court fees however, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the basic intent of the legislature as per Section 13 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 wherein a categorical provision has been given to refund the court fees in case where the appeal has been rejected by the lower Court or if a suit is remanded in appeal and on any of the ground mentioned in the section 351 of the CPC for a second decision given by the lower Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by Jaipur Bench, Jaipur of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2022 in the case of Majid Khan v. Mijjal & Anr. (S.B. Civil First Appeal No.742/2017) wherein, this Court, while dealing with the section 13 of CPC along with the Section 65-B of The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1961 has disposed of the first appeal while holding that the appellant and the respondent would be entitled to refund the court fees in the case of Majid Khan (supra) and the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:- "It is true that Section 65B (ibid) provides for refund of the court fees where the dispute between the parties to the suit is settled by one of the modes provided under section 89 of CPC. The said provision 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 65B (ibid), in those matters as well where the dispute is settled between the parties amicably without intervention of the Court, in my considered opinion, the court fees deserve to be refunded to the plaintiff. In view of the settled proposition of law and the directions issued in the judgments cited above, the prayer made by the counsel for the parties for refund of the court fees is allowed. The application (IA No. 1/2022) filed under Order 23, Rule 1 CPC stands allowed. Legal representatives of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 are allowed to withdraw the suit. In the instant case, the appellant and the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 would be entitled to refund of court fees. The Court below is directed to issue a certificate to the appellant and the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 authorizing them to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of court fees deposited by them. The appeal stands disposed of in the light of above directions. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of." 6. This Court find that the judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed in the case of Majid Khan v. Mijjal & Anr. The appeal stands disposed of in the light of above directions. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of." 6. This Court find that the judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed in the case of Majid Khan v. Mijjal & Anr. (S.B. Civil First Appeal No.742/2017) is not applicable in the instant case as the petition was allowed while examining the section 89 of CPC wherein a categorical provision has been given that the court fees is refunded in those cases where there is an amicable settlement between the parties and in the instant case, there is no settlement between the parties and the petitioner sought withdrawal of the civil suit on the ground that there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner and all the bids have already been opened and in such circumstances, the suit has become infructuous. 7. In view of the above, no interference is required in the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metro in Original Civil Suit No.174/2018. The writ petition is thus, dismissed as being devoid of merit. 8. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.