Dr. Rajendra Kumar Saini vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9931 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 22
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 676 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Rajendra Kumar Saini
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Justice And Law(Nyaay Va Vidhi) Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nutan Thakur,Raghvendra Kumar Saini
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard Dr. Nutan Thakur learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1.

Earlier time had been granted for filing of objections by the State which has not been filed till date. The dispute being covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and involving only questions of law without any disputed questions of fact, is therefore being decided at the admission stage itself dispensing counter affidavit.

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed raising challenge to the order dated 8th September, 2022 passed in regular suit No.203 of 2019 whereby application for return of court fees in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act read with Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially petitioner had filed suit for specific performance registered as regular suit bearing Nos. 2505 of 2018 and 203 of 2019 regarding injunction and specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28th October, 2017. It is submitted that during course of aforesaid proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise and in pursuance thereof a sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner on 6th April, 2021 whereafter possession of the property in question was also given to petitioner. The aforesaid facts have been clearly indicated in order dated 7th July, 2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in application under Section 482 No. 1986 of 2022.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance of aforesaid proceedings, an application dated 13th July, 2022 was filed in regular suit No.203 of 2019 seeking withdrawal of the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code in which a prayer for return of court fee was also made. The court concerned while allowing the application for withdrawal of suit has however rejected the prayer for return of court fees on the ground that settlement arrived at is not within purview of Section 89 of the Code due to which Section 16 of Court Fee Act would be inapplicable.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that said dispute is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras versus M.C. Subramaniam reported in A.I.R. Supreme Court 2021 page 2662.

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 has submitted that return of court fees is only in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act only when conditions under Section 89 of the Code are satisfied. It is submitted that impugned order clearly indicates the fact that since settlement has been arrived at between the parties, which is not within purview of Section 89 of the Code, consequently there can not be any return of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of relevant provisions, it is evident that return of court fees upon settlement having been arrived at between parties to a lis is contemplated under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870 which states that plaintiff would be entitled to a certificate from the court authorizing him to receive from the Collector, full amount of fee paid in respect of plaint where the court refers parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code.

Section 89 of the Code pertains to alternative dispute resolution particularly with regard to settlement of disputes outside the court. Admittedly compromise or settlement arrived at between parties to suit independent of reference made by the court concerned in terms of Section 89, as in the present case does not fall within the purview of Section 89 of the Code. To that extent, submission of learned State Counsel is quite correct.

However the aforesaid aspect has already been considered and decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Subramaniam (supra). Although the said judgment pertained to return of court fees in terms of Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 but Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has clearly held that Section 69 of the Act of 1955 is pari materia with section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which would be applicable in the present case.

Proceeding to consider the aforesaid dispute, it has been held that benefit of return of court fee would extend to all methods of out of court dispute settlement between parties that the court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. Relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgments are as follows:-

15. In light of these established principles of statutory interpretation, we shall now proceed to advert to the specific provisions that are the subject of the present controversy. The narrow interpretation of Section 89 of CPC and section 69A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the Petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein parties who are referred to a Mediation Centre or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their court fee; whilst parties who similarly save the Court's time and resources by privately settling their dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not require the Court's interference to seek a settlement. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, clearly leads to an absurd and unjust outcome, where two classes of parties who are equally facilitating the object and purpose of the aforesaid provisions are treated differentially, with one class being deprived of the benefit of section 69A of the 1955 Act. A literal or technical interpretation, in this background, would only lead to injustice and render the purpose of the provisions nugatory ? and thus, needs to be departed from, in favour of a purposive interpretation of the provisions.

xxx                        xxxx                       xxxx 
 
Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is in parimateria with section 69A of the 1955 Act, and hence the above stated principles are equally applicable to the present case. 
 

19. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose of section 69A is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma (supra), parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This is because by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the State of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third party institution to settle the dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find that the importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifiable reason why section 69A should only incentivize the methods of out of court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC and afford step brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.

Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have after the course of a long drawn trial, or multiple frivolous litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of court fees in the guise of having settled their disputes. In such cases, the Court may, having regard to the previous conduct of the parties and the principles of equity, refuse to grant relief under the relevant rules pertaining to court fees. However, we do not find the present case as being of such nature.

xxx xxxx xxxx

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. "

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, clearly suit proceedings have been withdrawn in pursuance of out of court settlement arrived at between the parties. Although the said mode of settlement does not come within the purview of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme court, plaintiff would nonetheless be entitled to return of court fees in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. The aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly applicable on four corners in present case.

In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 8th September, 2022 passed in regular suit No.203 of 2019 is set aside to the extent it rejects prayer for return of court fees.

The petition as such succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party No.2 i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no.44, Lucknow is directed to issue a certificate in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870 for return of court fees to the petitioner/plaintiff. Parties to bear their own cost.

Order Date :- 5.4.2023

prabhat