Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana vs Dr. Neelima Shangla on 20 May, 2005

Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR570

Author: Viney Mittal

Bench: Viney Mittal

JUDGMENT
 

Viney Mittal, J.
 

1. The State of Haryana has impugned the order dated January 20, 1993 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby an amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid as court fees by the plaintiff-respondent has been directed to be refunded back to her. The aforesaid court fees was paid by the plaintiff on some observation made by the Court of Senior Sub Judge in his order dated March 5, 1992. No such directions had been issued to the plaintiff to pay the court fees. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff had a right to claim refund of the court fees.

2. The learned District Judge, Karnal in para 14 of the impugned order has passed the following order:

"Once, it was concluded that court fees was paid by the plaintiff-petitioner under compulsion or bonafide mistaken impression, then the Court has inherent power to direct that refund thereof. The mandate of the binding judicial precedents is quite clear in that behalf. The plaintiff must have undergone acute difficulties while arranging such a huge amount. She was definitely ill-advised to bring such an action. The employer was bound to reimburse her for the expenses incurred on the treatment of injuries stated to have been suffered in the course of her employment in an accidental fall from the back of a horse, irrespective of negligence or otherwise on the part of the keepers of the vicious animal. The state too should have treated the question of refund of court fees as non-issue. The withholding of refund of such a huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid as court fees in an unsuccessful litigation with the employer, would virtually amount to pauperising her. Her prayer is certainly not repugnant to the basic principles involved in the matter and she can invoke the inherent powers of the court for redress in the matter."

For the above reasons given in the impugned order. I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter, at this stage.

Dismissed.