Gokul vs Smt. Jasoda
2022 Latest Caselaw 13893 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                 ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER 2022



              SECOND APPEAL No. 2365 of 2019
  Between:-
1. GOKUL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
   S/O LATE SHRI HUKUM CHAND SONI
   OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O NEAR
   PRAGATI JWELLERS, SARAFA BAZAR KHANDWA
   DISTRICT-KHANDWA (M.P.).


2. SMT. GAYATRI BAI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
 W/O LATE SHRI TARACHAND SONI OCCUPATION
 HOUSEWIFE. R/O NEAR PRAGATI JWELLERS,
 SARAFA BAZAR KHANDWA
 DISTRICT-KHANDWA (M.P.)

                                                ....APPELLANTS
  (BY SHRI SANJAY SARWATE, ADVOCATE )

  VERSUS


1. SMT. JASODA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O SHRI
   LAXMINARAYAN SONI DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI
   HUKUM CHAND SONI R/O H.NO. 33, AZAD NAGAR,
   TAHSIL AND DISTRICT-KHANDWA (M.P.)

2. SMT. VARSHA W/O SHRI VIKAS SONI AGED ABOUT
   36 YEARS R/O JHANDA CHOWK, OJHAR TAHSIL
   RAJPUR DISTRICT-BADWANI (M.P.)

3. SMT. RITU W/O SHRI DEEPAK SONI AGED ABOUT
   33 YEARS R/O OPP. VITTHAL TEMPLE,
   GHANTAGHAR KHANDWA (M.P.)

4. SMT. BARKHA W/O SHRI RAVI PANDEY AGED
      ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O SIDDHIPURAM COLONY
     BHANDARIA ROAD, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT-
     KHANDWA (M.P.)


5. SMT. MEGHA W/O SHRI RAVINDRA AHER AGED
   ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O RAMNAGAR KHANDWA
   (M.P.)


6. SMT. SHRADDHA W/O SHRI SANDEEP SONI
   AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O JHANDA CHOWK,
   OJHAR TAHSIL RAJPUR DISTRICT- BADWANI
   (M.P.)
                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
     (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the

following:

                                     ORDER

This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil

Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2019

passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/17 passed by learned I Additional

District Judge Khandwa confirming the judgment and decree dated

26.10.2016, passed by learned I Civil Judge Class I Khandwa District-

Khandwa in Civil Suit No.29-A/2014.

2. Heard on I.A.No.11771/2022, which is an application for withdrawal

of S.A.No.2365/2019 (under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC).

3. Also heard on I.A.No.11717/2022, which is an application for refund

of Court Fees.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of Second Appeal, parties have amicably settled their dispute. The plaintiff received consideration towards 1/3 share and executed relinquished deed in favour of appellants/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application before Executing Court for dismissing the execution case in view of satisfaction of decree. Accordingly, the Executing Court recorded the satisfaction and dismissed the execution case. Document D/1 is the copy of application along with order dated 06.02.2020 is filed herewith.

5. In support of his contention, appellants have filed their affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Western Infrabuild Products LLP V. M/s. Western Steel India and Anr. (Online 2022 Del 26.) wherein in Para Nos.9, 10 and 11 this Court has observed as under:-

9. In view of order passed in I.A.No.102/2022 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC), the present suit is decreed qua defendants in terms of Paragraph No.2 of said application, i.e. I.A.102/2022 which shall form part of decree sheet. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn.

10. Learned counsel also submits that since the subject matter of the suit stands amicably resolved, therefore, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, the entire court fees be refunded to the plaintiff.

11. Learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The High Court of Judicature at Madras rep. by its Registrar General vs. M.C. Subramanium & Ors. (2021) 3 SCC 560. : (AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 2662)/span. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:

"....23. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose of Section 69-A 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, the 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 69-A should only incentivise 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.

24. 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.

25. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section 89 CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasise that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89 CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow Respondent 1's claim.

7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.09.2022 passed in case of F.A.No.222 of 2015 (Dayaram Vs. Smt. Laxmi Agrawal) in Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 has held as under :-

6. In the case of PRADEEP SONAWAT VERSUS SATISH PRAKASH @ SATISH CHANDRA 2015(2) Civil Court Cases 52 the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under:-

16. Going a step further, it is felt whether the compromise is with the persuasion of the Court or amongst the parties by themselves in terms of Section 89 CPC or otherwise, invocation of provision of Section 16 of the Act should be made in all cases so that settlements by way of alternative dispute resolution mechanism are encouraged.

17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts, merely because the matter has not been settled in Lok Adalat, as has observed by the lower Court while dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner, invocation to Section 16 of the Act should not have been refused.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that even if the matter is settled by the parties outside the Court without invoking the provisions of Section 89 CPC, the appellant while withdrawing his first appeal, is entitled to the refund of full Court fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I.A. No. 11717/2022 is allowed.

9. Registry of this Court is directed to issue certificate regarding refund of Court fees of Rs. 60,920/- authorising the appellants Gokul and Smt. Gayatri Bai to receive back the full amount of the Court fee paid in respect of First Appeal, from the Collector.

10. With the aforesaid observations, I.A.No.11771/2022 is allowed, the Second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE

vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2022.11.01 11:05:42 +05'30'