The Kerala High Court observed a significant difference between Order 7 Rule 11(c) and Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).
The former is for situations before the parties go for trial and where the requisite stamp paper is not supplied within the prescribed time and therefore, the plaint is rejected while the latter is when it seems from the plaint that the suit is barred by any law.
If the suit is not barred, the Court would move to the next stage of framing issues and adjudicating upon them.
In the present case, the Court framed issues and proceeded with the trial. It was after the completion of the trial, that the suit was held to be barred by law. The Petitioner then filed an application for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fee. The Bench opined that the court fee cannot be refunded once the suit is decided on the merits as the Petitioner consciously and willingly paid the remaining court fee and participated in the trial.
Brief Facts:
A suit was filed by the Petitioner for a decree of damages which was dismissed by the Court. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an application for a refund of the court fee and the legal benefit fund stamps, which was also dismissed by the Court.
Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the dismissal is essentially a rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, the Court should have refunded the court fee and legal benefit stamps under Section 70 of the Kerala Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was submitted that Order 7 Rule 11(d) gets attracted only if it appears from the plaint that the suit is barred by law, otherwise, the Courts are obliged to proceed under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC to frame issues and adjudicate. Thereafter, a decree is passed under Section 33 which can be appealed under Section 96. It was contended that after the completion of the adjudicatory process, a party cannot aspire for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fee.
It was also argued that the Petitioner could have withdrawn the suit after the filing of the written statement, however, the Petitioner after the suit was dismissed filed for return of the plaint along with a refund of the court fee, which is not prescribed under any law.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed a significant difference between Order 7 Rule 11(c) and Order 7 Rule 11 (d). The former is for situations before the parties go for trial and where the requisite stamp paper is not supplied within the prescribed time and therefore, the plaint is rejected while the latter is when it seems from the plaint that the suit is barred by any law. If the suit is not barred, the Court would move to the next stage of framing issues and adjudicating upon them.
In the present case, the Court framed issues and proceeded with the trial. It was after the completion of the trial, that the suit was held to be barred by law. The said decree was not challenged by the Petitioner and instead an application was filed for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fee on the ground that the Court erred in dismissing the suit instead of rejecting it.
The High Court held that the contentions of the Petitioner cannot be sustained in the law as the Petitioner consciously and willingly paid the remaining court fee and participated in the trial. The Kerala High Court expounded that the court fee cannot be refunded after the suit is decided on merits.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the petitioner was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: S. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Dias
Case No: OP (C) No. 2463 of 2019
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sri M. Sasindran
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Sri. Salil Narayanan K.A., Sri. V. Manu
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
