Dismissed¶40

Sonia Goyal v. Chiman Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025RSA/1598/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of court fee on withdrawal of appeal after out-of-court compromise; Section 89 CPC liberal interpretation; Section 69-A of the 1955 Act; private amicable settlement entitling parties to court-fee refund; reliance on (2021) 3 SCC 560 (High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam); CM-4217-C-2025 withdrawal application; CM-4114-C-2025 refund application; CM-4113-C-2025; RSA-1598-2023 (O&M) dismissed as withdrawn; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Pankaj Jain, J.; decision date 13.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the Court Fee affixed on the appeal; withdrawal of the main appeal on account of compromise permitted and the main case dismissed as withdrawn. ¶40

Sonia Goyal Vs Chiman Lal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RSA-1598-2023 (O&M) ::1::

¶2

122+338 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CM-4217-C-2025, CM-4113-C-2025, CM-4114-C-2025 IN RSA-1598-2023 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.05.2025

Sonia Goyal

...... Appellant

versus

Chiman Lal

...... Respondent

**CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *****

¶10

Present :- Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Ms. Vibhuti Pahwa, Advocate for Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM-4113-C-2025

¶15

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

¶16

CM-4217-C-2025

¶17

This application has been filed for withdrawal of the main appeal

¶18

on account of compromise.

¶19

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

¶20

CM-4114-C-2025

¶21

1 Present application has been filed for refund of Court fee.

¶22

2 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

¶23

consideration before Supreme Court in the case of ‘High Court of Judicature

¶24

POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.16 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

::2::

¶26

RSA-1598-2023 (O&M)

¶27

at Madras Represented by its Registrar General vs. M.C. Subramaniam and others’, (2021) 3 SCC 560 . Supreme Court observed as under :-

¶28

“ 23 . We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The 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 outof-court settlement stated in section 89, CPC and afford stepbrotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.16 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

::3::

¶33

RSA-1598-2023 (O&M)

¶34

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 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.

¶35

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.”

¶36

3 In view of the aforesaid observations made by Supreme Court, the

¶37

Court Fee affixed on appeal, is ordered to be refunded.

¶38

4 Ordered accordingly. RSA-1598-2023

¶39

In view of the averments made in CM-4217-C-2025, the main

¶40

case is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶41

( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 13.05.2025 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : No/Yes