Writ petitioner sought refund of court fees paid after an out-of-court compromise. High Court held that Section 65(b) mandates refund upon settlement, irrespective of formal court referral, and ordered refund.
Set aside impugned order; direct lower court to issue certificate for refund of full court fees from Collector.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5850 / 2013
Mangi Lal S/o Pukhraj Ji, Age 44 years, By caste Luhar, R/o Sumerpur, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Girish Joshi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/03/2018
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :-
“ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 05.07.2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65(b) of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act may kindly be ordered to be allowed and court fee paid by the petitioner for Rupees 1,40,510/- may kindly be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
(2 of 6)
[CW-5850/2013]
Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
“Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to anyone of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908 and the matter is settled by one of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint”
(3 of 6)
[CW-5850/2013]
31, decided on 28.11.2011, which reads as under :_
“In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner for returning the court-fee upon compromise was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amendment was made in the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and new Section 65B was added whereby it is provided that in the event of settlement of dispute under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 2008, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) the full amount of court-fee paid in respect of such suit; but, in this case, although the matter was not referred under Section 89, C.P.C. but the fact remains that the matter was settled as per spirit of compromise and suit was withdrawn by the petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, obviously the application filed by the petitionerplaintiff for issuing the certificate to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) the amount of fee paid in respect of the suit but the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner on hyper-technical ground, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to issue certificate authorizing the petitioner-plaintiff to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) full amount of the fee paid by him in respect of the plaint.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.452/2009, Arvind Deval Vs. Mool Singh Deval and submits that in the similar circumstances the coordinate Bench of this Court passed order for issuing the certificate for the aforesaid purpose.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Section 65B of the Rajasthan Court Fee &Suits Valuation Act, 1961 which reads as under :
"65-B. Refund of Fee.-Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Sec.89 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central ActNo.5 of 1908) and the matter is settled by one of the modes provided under
(4 of 6)
[CW-5850/2013]
Sec.89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint."
The provision of above section was taken into consideration by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Deval (supra) and after considering the provisions of the aforesaid section, passed the following order :
"4. It is true that Section 65-B ibid provides for refund of the Court Fee where the dispute between the parties to the suit is settled by one of the modes provided under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but then, 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 considered opinion of this Court, in the matters where the dispute is settled between the parties amicably without intervention of the Court also the full amount of court fee paid deserves to be refunded to the appellant.
5. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. A certificate may be issued to the appellant authorising him to receive back from the Collector (Stamp), the full amount of fee paid in respect of the present appeal i.e. Rs.22,104/-."
In my opinion, when the Legislature is, time and again, making amendment for the purpose of finalization of litigations and, in this regard, amendment is also made in the Act of 1961 while inserting Section 65-B, then, obviously the trial Courts shall not refuse to return the court fee , in the event of withdrawal of the suits after compromise and settlement of the issue finally.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 25.11.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur is directed to issue certificate authorizing the petitioner-plaintiff to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) the full amount of court fee paid in respect of Suit No.116/08, in which, the matter has been finally decided after compromise.”
(5 of 6)
[CW-5850/2013]
(6 of 6)
[CW-5850/2013]
whereof, admittedly, has already been worked out between the parties, out of court, by way of entering into the compromise.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.
sudheer
3 issues framed by the court
Whether court fee is refundable despite the compromise being reached out of court.
Whether an application for refund of court fee should be moved under Section 65(b) instead of Section 63(2) of the Act when settlement has occurred outside formal court referral.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the refund application on technical grounds when the dispute was settled amicably between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mool Singh Vs. Abdul JabbarRelied on¶25
Mool Singh Vs. Abdul Jabbar, 2012(1) DNJ (Raj.)
Arvind Deval Vs. Mool Singh DevalExplained¶38
Arvind Deval Vs. Mool Singh Deval
4 provisions across 4 enactments
MANGI LAL
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
RAM LAL
JITENDRA KUMAR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
