Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh And Ors vs M/S Jtpl on 2 June, 2023
2023:PHHC:081326
RSA No.4009 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
102+203 RSA No.4009 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 02.06.2023
Ramesh (deceased) through his legal representatives and Ors.
.....Appellants
versus
JTPL Township Pvt. Ltd.
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Meher Nagpal, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the respondent
..
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):
CM-1270-C-2023
1. This is an application for decreeing the suit in terms of the
compromise dated 28.01.2023 (Annexure A-1), a copy of which has been
handed over in Court and is marked as Exhibit C-1.
2. Ms. Meher Nagpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
non-applicant/appellants states that she has no objection if the present
application is allowed and the main appeal is disposed off in terms of the
compromise.
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the
application, the same is allowed.
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:081326
RSA No.4009 of 2013
4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the parties to
the lis have since compromised the matter. The statements of the parties
were recorded by this Court on 19.05.2023. Learned counsel for the parties
state that they have no objection if the present appeal is disposed off in terms
of the compromise dated 28.01.2023.
5. In view of the statements made by the parties which were
recorded on 19.05.2023 and in view of the statements made by learned
counsel for the parties in Court today, the present appeal is disposed off in
terms of the Compromise, Ex.C1. The Compromise Ex.C1 shall be made a
part of the decree-sheet. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
CM-1270-C-2023
6. This is an application under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act,
1870 for refund of court fee.
7. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-appellants would
contend that in view of the compromise between the parties in the appeal
(RSA No.4009 of 2013), the applicant-appellants are entitled to the refund
of court fee and in this regard he has relied upon judgments passed by this
Court in Surender Kumar Vs. Hans Raj Mandi [2021 (2) RCR (Civil)
851]; Pritam Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721]; and
Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR
(Civil) 955].
8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants.
9. In Pritam Singh's case (supra), it has been held as under :
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:081326
"7. By referring to Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash
@ Satish Chandra, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 955 (P&H),
learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section
89 CPC would apply even in cases of counter claims in
suits and also in appeals, counter objections and counter
appeals and benefit of Section 16 of the Court Fee Act is
available to the appellant in appeal in case of settlement
irrespective of fact whether it was before the Lok Adalat
or otherwise. The refund of Court fee cannot be denied
merely because the matter has not been settled before the
Lok Adalat. Learned counsel also relied upon A.
Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore and
another, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374, Kamalamma Vs.
Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Cooperative
Marketing Society Ltd., Honnali, 2010(1) AIR Kar. R 279
and CR No.874 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. Hukam
Singh decided on 15.09.2009."
10. In the case of Surender Kumar (supra) it was held that :
"10. The counsel for the applicant-appellant contended
that since the dispute between the parties has been
settled, in the light of the principles enshrined in Section
16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 90 CPC, the
parties are entitled to be refunded the court fees paid by
them in the Courts below as well as this Hon'ble Court
irrespective of the fact that the settlement was reached
without the intervention of the Court and outside Court.
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:081326
11. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied
upon Pradeep Sonawat vs. Satish Prakash, AIR 2015
Pb. 130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. Hukam Singh, CR.
No.874 of 2009 decided on 15.9.2009; Harish Kumar
(deceased) through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar Sehgal, RSA.
No.3645 of 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; Naresh Kumar
vs. M/s Jasmer Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., RSA.
No.1265 of 2019 decided on 10.09.2019; A.
Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5)
RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka High Court]; and
Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural
Produce Coop. Marketing Society & Ors., 2009(33)
RCR (Civil) 110 [Karnataka High Court].
12. A perusal of the decisions mentioned above makes it
clear that court fee can be refunded to the parties where
a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside
the Court. This is also the intention behind the
provisions of law relied upon by the counsel so that the
process of alternate dispute resolution is encouraged."
11. In the case of Pradeep Sonawat (supra) it was held that :
"7. Conjoint reading of Section 16 of the Act with
Section 89 of CPC leaves no doubt that endeavor of the
legislature is for settlement of cases by alternative
disputes settlement mechanism. Be it Lok Adalat or out
of Court settlement or Arbitration or Conciliation or
Mediation, effort always is to end the litigation once for
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:081326
all times to come. Settlement in terms of Section 89 CPC
results in complete end to the litigation. Resort to appeal
or revision statutorily is out of the legal arena. Merely
because the matter for settlement was not taken up in
daily Lok Adalat, which under the aegis of the Haryana
State Legal Services Authority, is held every day in each
Court in the State after Court hours, should not be taken
to the prejudice of the petitioner-plaintiff.
8. Concept of daily Lok Adalat is not alien to the
alternative dispute redressal machinery. Daily Lok
Adalats in the State of Haryana are held in all the
districts. Every Court of the Sessions Division, after
court hours, gets converted into a daily Lok Adalat and
judicial officers hold sittings for this, depending upon
the workload of cases coming for settlement every day in
each Court. This way, there are as many daily Lok
Adalats as are the number of Courts in that Sessions
Division.
9. The question simpliciter posing for answer at this
stage in this petition is, as to whether the court fee
should be refunded to the petitioner- plaintiff, pursuant
to the settlement arrived at between the parties, which
was duly recorded by the Court and was accepted or
not? Judgment dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure P/3] clearly
reveals that the statement of the parties as also
compromise was recorded by the Court and forms part
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:081326
of the record. After having been acted upon by the
parties, the Court had passed the decree dated
11.12.2012 [Annexure P/3] in terms of the said
compromise.
10. In tune with the provisions of Section 89 of CPC,
endeavour is made by every Civil Court to decide the
matter by one of the modes provided in Section 89 CPC
for settlement between the parties. When such settlement
is arrived at in terms of Section 89 CPC, provision of
Section 16 of the Act, which is beneficial and benevolent
provision in its domain and content needs to be invoked
and the Court concerned is also required to inform the
plaintiff that he is entitled to get back the court fee
affixed by him on the plaint. Even if the plaintiff does not
apply for the same, the Court acting suo moto invoking
the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, should issue a
certificate authorizing the plaintiff to receive back the
court fee, paid in respect of such plaint, from the
Collector.
11. Though, this matter is not in issue here, even then it
may be mentioned that this provision would apply even
in cases of counter claims in suits as also in appeals,
counter objections and counter appeals.
12. To provide added locomotion to the provisions of
Section 89 of CPC in consonance therewith, the
Parliament had brought an amendment to the Court Fee
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:081326
Act, 1870 by inserting Section 16 therein. There is no
denying to the fact that the object behind insertion of
Section 16 to the Act was to encourage the litigants to
adopt the alternative dispute resolution methodology for
expeditious disposal of the disputes and with a view to
end the litigation forever.
xxx xxxx xxx
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 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."
12. Keeping in view the law laid in the cases of Pritam Singh,
Surender Kumar and Pradeep Sonawat (supra), the application is allowed
and the court fee affixed in the appeal (RSA No.4009 of 2013) is directed to
be refunded to the appellants as per Rules.
02.06.2023 (ALKA SARIN)
parkash JUDGE
NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
PARKASH CHAND
2023.06.03 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
