Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Travels vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Nupur Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4634/2021
Prem Travels, Through Owner Jaysingh S/o Shri Bhakar Ram
Vishnoi Age 45 Year B/c Vishnoi Address 1-C/471 Kudibhagtasani
Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector Stamp, Jodhpur.
2. Shri Amit Kumar S/o Jugal Kishore, B/c Arora Owner
Royal Rajasthan Tours And Travels Address Railway
Station Jodhpur.
3. Sujan Developers Partnership Firm, Through Partner
Ranjan Jangid S/o Jagdish Prasad R/o House No. 18,
Ashapurna Nagar, In Front Of DPS School, Jodhpur.
4. Jain Travels Partnership Firm, Through Partner Jitender
Jain S/o Shree Kailash Chandra Jain R/o Kalaptaru
Shopping Center, Jodhpur.
5. Evaluation Committee (Vehicles Tender), Aiims Basni
Jodhpur Through Member Shree Mahendra Singh, Rashmi
tehilyani, Shree Milind Solanki, Dr. Ashish Nyyyar, Dr.
Punit Sethiya.
6. Additional District Judge (No. 6), Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Parmar for
Mr. Manjul Shrimali
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
01/08/2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:-
"It is, therefore prayed that record of the case may
kindly be called for and after examining the same by an
appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set-a-side
the orders dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure-2) and
26.08.2020 (Annexure-4) application for refund of court
fees filed by petitioner may kindly be allowed
throughout."
(2 of 4) [CW-4634/2021]
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner has
filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge No.6, Jodhpur
Metropolitan and challenged the bid issued by respondent No.5 as
it was opened in favor of the respondent Amit Kumar wherein, the
notices were issued to the defendants and the civil suit was kept
pending for written statements. Thereafter, the petitioner moved
an application for withdrawal of the suit with a request to refund
back the court fees as incurred at the time of filing of the suit.
There were no objection raised by defendants and the learned trial
Court has allowed the application and the suit was disposed of as
withdrawn but, thereafter, the trial Court vide order dated
22.07.2019, refused to refund the court fees incurred on plaint.
The petitioner thereafter, moved an application under Section 151
of CPC to refund the court fees in light of the order 23 CPC and
Section 13 of Court Fees Act, 1870.
3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2020
dismissed the said application without taking any cogent reasons,
being aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with a prayer
to refund the court fees however, the learned trial Court has failed
to appreciate the basic intent of the legislature as per Section 13
of the Court Fee Act, 1870 wherein a categorical provision has
been given to refund the court fees in case where the appeal has
been rejected by the lower Court or if a suit is remanded in
appeal and on any of the ground mentioned in the Section 351 of
(3 of 4) [CW-4634/2021]
the CPC for a second decision given by the lower Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment
passed by Jaipur Bench, Jaipur of this Court vide order dated
22.07.2022 in the case of Majid Khan Vs. Mijjal & Anr. (S.B.
Civil First Appeal No.742/2017) wherein, this Court, while
dealing with the Section 13 of CPC along with the Section 65-B of
The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1961 has
disposed of the first appeal while holding that the appellant and
the respondent would be entitled to refund the court fees in the
case of Majid Khan (supra) and the relevant portion is
reproduced hereunder:-
"It is true that Section 65B (ibid) provides for
refund of the court fees where the dispute between the
parties to the suit is settled by one of the modes
provided under Section 89 of CPC. The said provision
has been incorporated so as to encourage the amicable
settlement between the parties out of the Court.
Therefore, keeping in view the spirit of Section 65B
(ibid), in those matters as well where the dispute is
settled between the parties amicably without
intervention of the Court, in my considered opinion, the
court fees deserve to be refunded to the plaintiff.
In view of the settled proposition of law and the
directions issued in the judgments cited above, the
prayer made by the counsel for the parties for refund
of the court fees is allowed.
The application (IA No. 1/2022) filed under Order
23 Rule 1 CPC stands allowed. Legal representatives of
the plaintiff respondent No. 1 are allowed to withdraw
the suit.
In the instant case, the appellant and the
respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5 would be entitled to refund
of court fees.
(4 of 4) [CW-4634/2021]
The Court below is directed to issue a certificate
to the appellant and the respondents No. 1/1 to 1/5
authorizing them to receive back from the Collector,
the full amount of court fees deposited by them.
The appeal stands disposed of in the light of
above directions.
Stay application and all pending application(s),
if any, also stand disposed of."
6. This Court find that the judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed
in the case of Majid Khan Vs. Mijjal & Anr. (S.B. Civil First
Appeal No.742/2017) is not applicable in the instant case as
the petition was allowed while examining the Section 89 of CPC
wherein a categorical provision has been given that the court fees
is refunded in those cases where there is an amicable settlement
between the parties and in the instant case, there is no settlement
between the parties and the petitioner sought withdrawal of the
civil suit on the ground that there is no interim order in favor of
the petitioner and all the bids have already been opened and in
such circumstances, the suit has become infructuous.
7. In view of the above, no interference is required in the order
dated 26.08.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge
No.6, Jodhpur Metro in Original Civil Suit No.174/2018. The writ
petition is thus, dismissed as being devoid of merit.
8. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
26-Amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
