Dismissed¶¶15

Ranjit Singh v. State Bank of Patiala Now State Bank of India

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2025RSA/110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: refund of court fee; Section 89 CPC; Section 69-A of the 1955 Act; amicable/private settlement outside Court; appeal dismissed as infructuous; M.C. Subramaniam (2021) 3 SCC 560; Kamalamma; RSA-11-2022 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Ranjit Singh v. State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India; court fee Rs. 9,204/-; Pankaj Jain, J.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the court fee of Rs. 9,204/- affixed on the appeal; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶¶15

Ranjit Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala Now State Bank of India — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RSA-11-2022 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

130

¶4

RSA-11-2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.05.2025

Ranjit Singh

...... Appellant

versus

State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India ...... Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Ms. Monica Mehta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

¶14

Counsels are ad idem that the matter already stands amicably settled and the present appeal has been rendered infructuous.

¶15

Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

¶16

Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant

¶17

has affixed Court Fee of Rs.9,204/-. The same be ordered to be refunded.

¶18

The issue regarding refund of Court Fee in terms of Section 89 CPC in the event of settlement of dispute outside the Court, came up for consideration before Supreme Court in the case of ‘ High Court of Judicature at Madras Represented by its Registrar General vs. M.C. Subramaniam and others’, (2021) 3 SCC 560 . Supreme Court observed as under:

¶19

“23. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The

¶20

DINESH KUMAR 2025.06.16 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-11-2022 (O&M)

¶22

purpose of Section 69-A is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma (supra), parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This is because by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the State of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third-party institution to settle the dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find that the importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifiable reason why Section 69-A should only incentivize the methods of out-of-court settlement stated in section 89, CPC and afford step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.

¶23

24. Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple frivolous litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of court fees in the guise of having settled their disputes. In such cases, the Court may, having regard to the previous conduct of the parties and the principles of equity, refuse to grant relief under the relevant rules pertaining to court fees. However, we do not find the present case as being of such nature.

¶24

25. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under section 89, CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the Petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though

¶25

DINESH KUMAR 2025.06.16 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-11-2022 (O&M)

¶27

the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the Respondent No. 1's claim.

¶28

26. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee.”

¶29

In view of the aforesaid observations made by Supreme Court, the Court Fee affixed on appeal, is ordered to be refunded.

¶30

Ordered accordingly.

¶31

Since the main case has been decided, pending

¶32

miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

¶33

	(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE
20.05.2025
Dinesh
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
	Whether Reportable : No

¶34

DINESH KUMAR 2025.06.16 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ranjit Singh v. State Bank of Patiala Now State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. State Bank of Patiala Now State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)Balkar Singh Vs Kanta Devi and Ors.

(O&M)Baljit Singh Vs Ajit Singh and Others

United India Insurance Co. Vs Reema Singla

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Savitri Devi and Others

Chandan Bala Jain Vs Shri Manmohan Lal through His Lrs and Others

Shri Chand Vs Bhupinder Singh