Dismissed¶60

Sham Aghi and Others v. Suraj Sachdeva

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2025RSA/428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of court fee on out-of-court/private settlement; Section 89 CPC; Section 69-A of the 1955 Act; reliance on High Court of Judicature at Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam, (2021) 3 SCC 560 (Kamalamma referred to therein); early hearing under Section 151 CPC; appeal dismissed as infructuous; Regular Second Appeal (RSA) before Punjab & Haryana High Court; quantum Rs.14,251.20; parties Sham Aghi v. Suraj Sachdeva; single Bench of Pankaj Jain, J.; decision dated 11.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Main appeal RSA-428-2020 dismissed as having rendered infructuous upon amicable settlement; court fee of Rs.14,251.20 affixed on the appeal ordered to be refunded; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶60

Sham Aghi and Others Vs Suraj Sachdeva — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the application CM-6506-C-2025 filed under Section 151 CPC for early hearing of the appeal should be allowed. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

Application CM-6506-C-2025 under Section 151 CPC for early hearing is allowed; the date of hearing of the main case is preponed to the same day and the case is taken on Board.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam, (2021) 3 SCC 560 (liberal construction of Section 89 CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act covering private out-of-court settlements), the court fee affixed on the appeal is ordered to be refunded.

¶26

Key takeaways

The main appeal RSA-428-2020 is dismissed as having rendered infructuous, the parties having amicably settled the matter.ratio¶60
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Pankaj Jain, J., oral), decision dated 11.07.2025 — CM-6506/6507/6508/6509-C-2025 in/and RSA-428-2020 (O&M), Sham Aghi and others v. Suraj Sachdeva. (i) Application CM-6506-C-2025 under Section 151 CPC for early hearing allowed; main case taken on Board the same day. (ii) On CM-6509-C-2025, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in High Court of Judicature at Madras v. M.C. Subramaniam, (2021) 3 SCC 560, where the Supreme Court held that Section 89 CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act must be interpreted liberally so that parties who settle their disputes by private negotiation outside court are entitled to refund of court fee on the same footing as parties referred to mediation/arbitration under Section 89 CPC. Following those observations, the Court Fee of Rs.14,251.20 affixed on the appeal was ordered to be refunded. (iii) Counsels being ad idem that the matter already stood amicably settled, the main appeal was dismissed as having rendered infructuous, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.

¶1

[109] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CM-6506 - C-2025 CM-6507 - C-2025 CM-6508 - C-2025 and CM-6509 - C-2025 in/and RSA-428 - 2020

¶3

Date of D ecision : 11.07.2025

¶4

Sham Ag h i and others …Appellants versus Suraj Sac h deva ….Respondent

¶5

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶6

Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocat e for the appellants.

¶7

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. (Throug h V.C.)

¶8

¶9

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM-6506-C-2025

¶11

[1] This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for e a rly

¶12

hearing o f the appeal.

¶13

[2] For the reasons as are recor d ed in the application, the sam e is allowed . Date of hearing of the main ca s e is preponed to today itself an d is taken on B oard.

¶14

CM-6509-C-2025

¶15

[3] Counsel for the appellant fu r ther submits that the appellant has affixed C o urt Fee of Rs.14,251.20. The s a me be ordered to be refunded.

¶16

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA-428 - 2020 (O&M) -2-

¶18

[4] The issue regarding refund o f Court Fee in terms of Sectio n 89 CPC in t h e event of settlement of disp u te outside the Court, came up for consider a tion before Supreme Court i n 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 observe d as under:-

¶19

“23. We find ourselves in ag r eement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisi o ns stated supra. The purpose of Se c tion 69-A is to reward parti e s who have chosen to withdraw t heir litigations in favour o f more conciliatory dispute settle m ent mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Cour t , by enabling them to claim r ef und of the court fees deposited by t h em. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the disput e between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic incen t ive for pushing them towards explo r ing alternative methods of di s pute settlement. As the Karnataka H igh Court has rightly observ e d in Kamalamma (supra), parties w ho have agreed to settle t h eir disputes without requiring jud i cial intervention under sectio n 89, CPC are even more deservin g of this benefit. This is beca u se by choosing to resolve their cl a ims themselves, they have sa v ed the State of the logistical hassl e of arranging for a third-par ty institution to settle the dispute. Th o ugh arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resol u tion mechanisms, we also fin d that the importance of private amic a ble negotiation between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifia b le reason why Section 69-A should o nly incentivize the methods o f out-of-court settlement stated in se c tion 89, CPC and afford ste p -brotherly treatment to other met h ods availed of by the parties. 24. Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have a fter the course of a long-dra w n trial, or multiple frivolous litigations, approached the Court see k ing refund of court fees in the guise o f

¶20

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-428 - 2020 (O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

having settled their dispu t es. In such cases, the Court may, ha v ing regard to the previous co n duct of the parties and the principl e s of equity, refuse to grant relief under the relevant rules pertainin g to court fees. However, we d o not find the present case as bein g of such nature.

¶24

25. Thus, even though a stric t construction of the terms of section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 19 5 5 Act may not encompass such pri v ate negotiations and settlem e nts between the parties, we emph a size that the participants in su c h settlements will be entitled to the s a me benefits as those who h a ve been referred to explore alter n ate dispute settlement metho ds under section 89, CPC. Indeed, we f ind it puzzling that the Petiti o ner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Th o ugh the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time cour t fee in the short term, they will be s a ved the expense and opportu n ity cost of managing an endless cyc l e of litigation in the long ter m . It is therefore in their own intere s t to allow the Respondent No. 1's claim. 26. Thus, in our view, the H igh Court was correct in holding that section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Ac t be interpreted liberally. In v i ew of this broad purposive construc t ion, we affirm the High Court ' s conclusion, and hold that section 8 9 of CPC shall cover, and th e benefit of Section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all m ethods of out-of-court dispute settle m ent between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have b een legally arrived at. This w o uld, thus, cover the present controv e rsy, wherein a private settle m ent was arrived at, and a mem o to withdraw the appeal wa s filed before the High Court. In su c h a case as well, the appellant, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein woul d be entitled to refund of court f ee.”

¶25

25.

¶26

[5] In view of the aforesaid obs e rvations made by Supreme Court, the Court Fee affixed on appeal, is ordere d to be refunded.

¶27

[6] Ordered accordingly.

¶28

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

[109] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶30

CM-6506 - C-2025 CM-6507 - C-2025 CM-6508 - C-2025 and CM-6509 - C-2025 in/and RSA-428 - 2020

¶31

Date of D ecision : 11.07.2025

¶32

Sham Ag h i and others …Appellants versus Suraj Sac h deva ….Respondent

¶33

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶34

Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocat e for the appellants.

¶35

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. (Throug h V.C.)

¶36

¶37

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶38

CM-6506-C-2025

¶39

[1] This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for e a rly

¶40

hearing o f the appeal.

¶41

[2] For the reasons as are recor d ed in the application, the sam e is allowed . Date of hearing of the main ca s e is preponed to today itself an d is taken on B oard.

¶42

CM-6509-C-2025

¶43

[3] Counsel for the appellant fu r ther submits that the appellant has affixed C o urt Fee of Rs.14,251.20. The s a me be ordered to be refunded.

¶44

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

RSA-428 - 2020 (O&M) -2-

under:-

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-428 - 2020 (O&M)

-3-

25.

[5] In view of the aforesaid obs e rvations made by Supreme Court, the Court Fee affixed on appeal, is ordere d to be refunded. [6] Ordered accordingly.

¶56

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.18 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

RSA-428 - 2020 (O&M) -4-

¶58

RSA-428-2020 (O&M)

¶59

[7] Counsels are ad idem that t he matter already stands amic a bly settled and the present appeal has been re n dered infructuous.

¶60

[8] Dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶61

[9] Since the main case has be e n decided, pending miscellaneous applicati o n, if any, shall also stands disposed off.