Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tripathi vs M/S Pushparatana Realty Pvt. Ltd. on 30 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2517
1 MP-7068-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 7068 of 2024
SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S PUSHPARATANA REALTY PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mitul Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Dev Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2024 passed
by the 3rd District Judge, District Indore in so far as their prayer for refund of the
Court fees paid by them on the plaint has been rejected.
3. The plaintiffs had instituted an action before the trial Court for
possession, mesne profits, permanent injunction and declaration. On the valuation
of the plaint they had paid Court fees of Rs.1,50,000/-. After service of summons
upon them the defendants raised an objection that the suit is not maintainable in
view of the dispute being arbitrable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application
under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to take
recourse to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
said application was allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order. Thereafter
prayer was made by plaintiffs for refund of the Court fees which has been declined
on the ground that since the suit has been withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2517
2 MP-7068-2024
the CPC and not on the basis of compromise Court fees cannot be refunded.
4. Learned counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that withdrawal of the suit
in the present matter is akin to return of the plaint as provided under Order 7 Rule
10 of the CPC since the same has been returned for presentation before the
competent forum hence Court fees ought to have been refunded. Reliance has
been placed on the decision of Apex Court in Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar
V/s. T. Choithram and Sons & Others , Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.18102/2013 and of the High Court of Delhi in Amit Jain V/s. Mahavir
International Pvt. Ltd. and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2657.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
6. Admittedly the suit has not been dismissed as withdrawn on account of
any settlement having been arrived at between the parties either before the Court
or out of Court. The provisions of Section 89 of the CPC are hence not applicable.
Since the suit has not been disposed off by way of a settlement Section 16 of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 would also not be applicable.
7. In terms of Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC the plaint is returned to be
presented to the "Court" in which the "suit" should have been instituted. In the
present matter though it has been observed in the impugned order that the
application is being allowed for presentation of the plaint in the competent forum
but proceedings before an arbitrator cannot be said to be a proceeding in a Court.
They are also not in the nature of a suit. If a matter is to be brought under the
purview of Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC then there should be return of the plaint
for presentation before the Court and that too of a suit. The provisions of Order 7
Rule 10 of the CPC are also hence not applicable to the present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2517
3 MP-7068-2024
8. In the case of Dr. (Colonel) Subhashchandra Talwar (supra) the plaint
was ordered to be returned with liberty to file it before the Court of competent
jurisdiction. The said judgment hence does not help the plaintiffs in any manner.
In the case of Amit Jain (supra) also the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file
fresh suit before the appropriate Court. In the case of Nagpur District Central Co-
operative Bank Limited V/s. Union of India, W.P. No.4369/2009 also the plaint
was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit before the appropriate Court. The said
judgments are also not helpful to the plaintiffs as in the present case the suit has
been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the arbitrator under the Act,
1996.
9. Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error having been
committed by the trial Court in refusing to direct refund of the Court fees paid by
the plaintiffs on the plaint. The impugned order in so far as it has rejected the
prayer for refund of Court fees is accordingly affirmed as a result of which the
petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
