Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hariram Jat vs Rakesh Arya on 29 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2268
1 MP-313-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 313 of 2025
HARIRAM JAT
Versus
RAKESH ARYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Akashdeep Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Urmila Malviya - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.3/State.
ORDER
Heard.
Since this order would not be prejudicial to the interests of respondents
1 and 2, I do not deem it fit to issue notice of this petition to them.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by order dated
10.03.2022 passed by the trial Court whereby his application for refund of
Court fees has been rejected.
3. The suit had been instituted by plaintiff against the defendants for
specific performance of contract. During pendency of the suit the parties
arrived at an amicable settlement between themselves out of Court. Pursuant
thereto an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC was preferred by
the plaintiff before the trial Court for withdrawal of the suit. The said
application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 10.03.2023 and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2268
2 MP-313-2025
suit was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 16 of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 151 of the CPC for refund of the
Court fees paid by him on the plaint. It was stated that since the suit has been
dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a compromise the plaintiff is entitled
for refund of Court fees paid on the plaint. The said application has been
rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order on the ground that
withdrawal of the suit is not on the basis of any settlement having been
arrived at between the parties as contemplated under Section 89 of the CPC
hence the Court fees cannot be refunded to the plaintiff.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff has brought to the
notice of this Court the judgment passed by this Court in Dayram vs. Smt.
Laxmi Agrawal I.L.R. 2023 M.P.263 in which it has been categorically held
that even if the matter is settled by the parties outside the Court without
invoking the provisions of Section 89 of the CPC, the plaintiff while
withdrawing the appeal is entitled to refund of full Court fees as provided
under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. Though the said decision is in
respect of withdrawal of an appeal but the principle as laid down therein
would be squarely applicable even in case where a plaint before the trial
Court is withdrawn on the basis of a compromise having been arrived at
between the parties out of Court. The relevant part of the said judgment is as
under:
"3. Now the question arises as to whether this Court, in
the aforesaid circumstances, can pass order for refund of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2268
3 MP-313-2025
court fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court
Fees Act, 1870. Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870
states as under:--
"16. Refund of fee - Where the court refers
the parties to the suit to any one of the mode
of settlement of dispute referred to in Section
89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the
plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from
the court authorising him to receive back
from the collector, the full amount of the fee
paid in respect of such plaint."
4. In the case of A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank
Ltd.ILR 2006 KAR 4032, Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court, held as follows:
"6. Considering the object behind the
Amendment Act 1999 inserting section 89 of
CPC and also the insertion of Section 16. it is
clear that the object of providing of refund of
Full Court Fees, is to encourage the
settlement of the disputes in terms of section
89 of CPC. In this case, the parties agreed for
settlement in terms suggested by the Court
and accordingly, they have settled their
dispute outside the Court. The judicial
settlement is also one of the alternative
method of settlement of the disputes. As
such, in our considered view, in any
settlement arrived in terms of section 89 of
CPC including the judicial settlements at the
intervention and on terms suggested by the
Court, the appellant is entitled for refund of
Full Court Fees, as otherwise, it would be
meaningless if the provisions of section 16
are not applied for settlement of dispute by
the parties under section 89. Section 89 does
provide for settlement of dispute at any stage
of the proceeding, whether it is by way of
method referred to therein or by judicial
settlement as contemplated under section 89
sub-section (1). As such, we are of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2268
4 MP-313-2025
opinion that if the parties come forward to
settle their dispute before the Court itself,
they should not be denied of refund of Full
Court Fees on the ground that they have not
settled the dispute before any of the four
methods provided under section 89 of CPC.
The object behind section 89 is to encourage
the parties to arrive at settlement and if that
object is sought to be achieved by means of
referring the matter to any of the four
methods mentioned in section 89, then even
the settlement arrived at the earliest stage
before the Court would also be one of the
method provided under section 89 sub-
section (1). Hence, we feel it as just and
appropriate to order for full refund of Court
Fees in the case of parties settling their
dispute before the Court as well as before any
of the Forum mentioned under Section 89 of
the CPC. No party should be discriminated in
the matter of refund of Court Fees mainly on
the ground that they have settled the dispute
at the earliest stage before the Court without
recourse to any of the methods mentioned
under section 89 of the CPC. Hence,
appellant is entitled for refund of Full Court
Fees."
5. Aforesaid view has been upheld by the Karnataka
High Court, in Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk
Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society
Ltd.(2010) 4 KCCR 3211 = AIR 2010 AIR Kant R 279
where, again referring to provisions of Section 89 of
CPC and Section 16 of the Act, it was observed as
under:
"7. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or
any other proceeding get their dispute settled
amicably through Arbitration or meditation
or conciliation or in the Lok Adalat, by
invoking provisions of Section 89. C.P.C, or
they get the same settled between themselves
without the intervention of any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2268
5 MP-313-2025
Arbitrator/Mediator/Conciliators or in Lok
Adalat etc., and without invoking the
provisions of S. 89, Civil Procedure Code,
the fact remains that they get their dispute
settled without the intervention of the court.
If they get their dispute settled by invoking S.
89, C.P.C, in that event the State may have to
incur some expenditure but, if they get their
dispute settled between themselves without
the intervention of the Court or anyone else,
such as arbitrator/mediator etc., the State
would not be incurring any expenditure. This
being so, I am of the considered opinion that
whether the parties to a litigation get their
dispute settled by invoking Section 89, C.P.C
or they get the same settled between
themselves without invoking S. 89, Civil
Procedure Code, the party paying Court Fees
in respect thereof should be entitled to the
refund of full Court Fees as provided under
Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Therefore, the contention of the learned
Government Pleader that the principles laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in
the said case cannot be made applicable to
the facts of the present case does not deserve
acceptance."
6. In the case of PRADEEP SONAWAT v. 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 that
whether the compromise is with the
persuasion of the Court or amongst the
parties by themselves in terms of Section
89CPC 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2268
6 MP-313-2025
17. Keeping in view the totality of the facts,
merely because the matter has not been
settled in Lok Adalat, as has been 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 89CPC, 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."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the trial
Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the application
preferred by the plaintiff for refund of the Court fees stands allowed. The
trial Court is directed to take steps forthwith for the purpose of refund of the
Court fees to the plaintiff.
7. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
