Mohammad Khalid vs Ram Naresh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9216 MP

                                                                         1
                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                                     BEFORE
                                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                                                                 ON THE 9th OF JULY, 2022

                                                           FIRST APPEAL No. 428 of 2014

                                             Between:-
                                             MOHAMMAD KHALID S/O MIA KHAN , AGED
                                             ABOUT 39 YEARS, H.NO.3 UMASLAKH LANE
                                             BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....APPELLANT
                                             (BY SHRI RAUNAK YADAV, ADVOCATE)

                                             AND

                                     1.      RAM NARESH S/O JAGANNATH MEENA H.NO.78
                                             KHANU GAON KOHEFIZA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     2.      BADAMI LAL S/O JAGANNATH MEENA H.NO. 78
                                             KHANU GAON KOHEFIZA BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                     3.      RAKESH S/O JAGANNATH MEENA H.NO. 78
                                             KHANU GAON KOHEFIZA BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                     4.      MAHENDRA MARAN S/O JAGANNATH MEENA
                                             H.NO. 78 KHANU GAON KOHEFIZA BHOPAL
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                             (BY NONE )

                                           This appeal coming on for IA No.6620/2022-withdrawal of petition
                                     and For final hearing. this day, the court passed the following:
                                                                          ORDER

This case is listed today for orders on I.A.No.6620/2022. The said application prays for withdrawal of the first appeal as there has been an out of Signature Not Verified SAN

court settlement arrived at between the parties. Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.07.11 19:02:12 IST The appellant further prays for the refund of Court fees deposited by him

in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2021(3) SCC 560 - (High Court of judicature at Madras Vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others). In this case, the High Court of Madras approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court on its judicial side whereby a similar application for withdrawal of the first appeal was allowed by the High Court of Madras. The appeal was sought to be withdrawn on account of an out of court settlement. The appellant in that case also had prayed that the Court fees be refunded to him. The first appeal was withdrawn by the appellant therein and the prayer for refund of the Court fees was allowed by the High Court of Madras on the judicial side. However, the registry of the Madras

High Court orally refused to refund the Court fees on the ground that such refund is not authorized by the existing rules.

The respondent no.1 before the Supreme Court who was the appellant in the High Court, filed a Special Misc.Petition before the High Court under section 89 of the CPC praying for refund of the Court fees paid by him in the appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the Madras High Court allowed the aforementioned Civil Misc.Petition and directed the registry to refund the full Court fees.

Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court on the judicial side the Madras High Court approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the case in the light of section 89 CPC and section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (analogous provision applicable in Madhya Pradesh is the section 16 of the Court Fees Act) and held

Signature Not Verified SAN that once an appeal is withdrawn by way of an out of court settlement which

Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI may not be in the manner prescribed in section 89 CPC, even then the appellant Date: 2022.07.11 19:02:12 IST

would be eligible for a full refund of the Court fees. Not holding so, the Supreme Court's opined, would be violative of the right of the appellant under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The reason it gave was that it was not possible to discriminate a settlement arrived at between the parties outside the Court, which is not provided for under section 89 CPC. As long as there was a withdrawal of the appeal on account of settlement between parties, the appellant was entitled to a full refund.

Under the circumstances, the First Appeal No.428/2014 is dismissed as withdrawn and the office is requested to refund the Court Fees paid by the appellant at the time of filing of the first appeal.

With the above, the appeal is finally disposed of.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.07.11 19:02:12 IST