Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs Amandeep Kaur on 10 April, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
2024:PHHC:049465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.819 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.04.2024
Balbir Singh
.....Appellant.
Versus
Amandeep Kaur
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Argued by:- Ms. Sonia G. Singh Samber, Advocate
for the appellant.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
CM No.785-C of 2024
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-
appellant-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicant') for
seeking permission to withdraw the appeal bearing RSA No. 819 of 2023
in view of the orders passed on 12.04.2023 and 13.05.2023 as well as the
statement, as recorded in the Execution Petition.
A perusal of the afore-mentioned orders and the statement
(Annexures A-4, A-6 and A-5 respectively) reveals that on 12.04.2023, the
counsel for the Decree-Holder (respondent-plaintiff) had made a statement
in Execution Petition No.12 of 2013 titled as 'Amandeep Kaur Vs. Balbir
Singh' that the matter had been compromised with the Judgment-Debtor
(the applicant) and therefore, the Decree-Holder did not want to pursue the
said Execution Petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn for having
been fully satisfied and then, the matter had been referred to National Lok
RSA No.819 of 2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:049465
Adalat vide order Annexure A-4 and the above-said Execution Petition was
dismissed accordingly vide order Annexure A-6.
Keeping in view the afore-discussed facts and circumstances,
the present application is allowed as prayed for.
Dismissed for having been withdrawn as prayed for in CM
No.785-C of 2024.
CM No.787-C of 2023
By filing the instant application under Section 89 read with
Section 151 CPC and Section 16 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the applicant
has sought the refund of the total Court-fees, while averring that the parties
have amicably settled their dispute in the above-referred appeal.
Heard on this application.
The respondent-plaintiff had filed the Civil Suit for seeking a
decree for recovery of Rs.13.3 lac from the applicant and the trial Court
had decreed the same on 21.11.2016. The appeal preferred by the applicant
to assail the judgment and decree as rendered by the trial Court, also ended
in its dismissal by the Lower Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree
as passed on 13.12.2022 and feeling aggrieved therefrom, the applicant had
preferred the afore-referred Regular Second Appeal (RSA) to lay challenge
to the same. From orders Annexures A-4 and A-6 and statement Annexure
A-5, it transpires that during the pendency of the above-said appeal (RSA)
before this Court, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement/compromise
in respect of their dispute in the Execution Petition and the same had been
RSA No.819 of 2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:049465
dismissed as withdrawn in the National Lok Adalat, for having been fully
satisfied, as discussed earlier.
Though the applicant has sought the refund of the Court-fee in
total but it is worth-while to mention here that the Apex Court has recently
observed in High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar
General Vs. M.C. Subramaniam and others, 2021(2) R.C.R (Civil) 228
that "where the parties privately agreed to settle their dispute outside the
Court without any reference by the Court, they were entitled to the refund
of Court-fees and the importance of the private amicable negotiation
between the parties could not be understated and the petitioners were
directed to refund the Court-fee deposited by respondent No.1 for Appeal
Suits" and the present matter is squarely covered under these observations
because in the afore-cited case also, respondent No.1 had filed the Appeal
Suits in the High Court against the judgments passed by the Munsif Court
and District Court in the Original Suits as filed by respondent No.2 for the
recovery of money and during the pendency of the Appeal Suits, the parties
had entered into an out of the Court settlement and those Appeal Suits were
sought to be withdrawn while praying for refund of the Court-fee deposited
by respondent No.1 and the said prayer was accepted by the High Court but
when the Registry orally refused to refund the Court-fee, respondent No.1
moved Civil Miscellaneous Applications which were allowed by the High
Court vide common order and the petitioner therein impugned the same in
Hon'ble Supreme Court and then, the direction qua the refund of the Court-
fee, deposited in the Appeal Suits only, had been given.
RSA No.819 of 2023 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:049465
In the light of the above-quoted observations, the application
in hand is, hereby, partly allowed to the effect that the applicant-appellant
is entitled to the refund of the Court-fees, as affixed on/appended with the
afore-referred Regular Second Appeal only and the Registry is directed to
do the needful accordingly, while complying with the relevant procedure/
Rules as prescribed for this purpose.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
April 10, 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
