Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Ahuja vs Smt. Janki Devi Aasnani on 3 July, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 MP-654-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 654 of 2024
(ASHOK KUMAR AHUJA
Vs
SMT. JANKI DEVI AASNANI AND OTHERS)
Appearance:
(SHRI ISHTEYAQ HUSAIN - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
ORDER
None for the respondents.
Despite service of the respondents, they have chosen not to appear before the Court.
2. This petition is being filed assailing the order dated 06.01.2024 passed in Case No.625 of 2022 whereby the learned Trial Court has denied for refund of the Court Fees amounting to Rs.2,18,000/- paid in RCSA No.01/2013.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for Specific Performance of Contract dated 01.08.2008 against the respondents/defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and the defendants have entered into a compromise outside the Court and he filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure on 04.08.2021 seeking withdrawal of the suit on the basis of the compromise. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court and the suit was dismissed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties as the plaintiff does not want any action against the defendants. It is pointed out that the agreement entered into between the parties was alleged to be forged and fabricated for which a criminal complaint was filed on the basis of which Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM 2 MP-654-2024 Criminal Case No.1112 of 2009 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Rewa for offence under Section 419, 419 read with Section 120-B, 465 read with Section 120-B, 467, 467 read with Section 120-B, 468, 468 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Session and was registered as Session Trial No.300362/2011. The petitioner was acquitted vide judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2022 from all the charges. It is argued that once the proceedings have been concluded in terms of outside Court settlement, therefore, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, the petitioner was entitled to refund of Court Fees of Rs.2,18,000/-. He filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the order dated 04.08.2021 along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the review. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General Vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in 2021 (3) SCC 560 and also in the case of Surendra Rathore Vs. Vishwanath Bhasin and another reported in 2023 (2) JLJ
100. It is argued that the aforesaid judgments are fully applicable to the case of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is per se illegal, as far as refund of Court Fees were denied to him is concerned.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the civil suit has been dismissed based upon the compromise entered into between the parties. There is no order on record to show that the civil suit has been withdrawn. In the application filed under Order Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM 3 MP-654-2024 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C., the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-
"1- ;g fd lanHkZ dk O;ogkjokn eku~0 U;k;k0 esa fopkjk/khu gSA ftlesa vkt dh is'kh fu;r gSA 2- ;g fd lanHkZ ds O;ogkjokn esa oknh ,oa izfroknhx.k ds e/; laca/k e/kqj gks x;s gSa rFkk mudk vkil esa jkthukek ¼le>kSrk½ gks x;k gSA vc oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls mijksDr laca/k esa dqN ysuk&nsuk ugha gS uk gh Hkfo"; esa oknh ;k mlds okfjlku mijksDr laca/k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fdlh Hkh izdj.k dks dksbZ eqdnek vkxs Hkfo"; esa U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha djsaxsA 3- ;g fd mijksDr O;ogkjokn dks vkxs u pykus ds fy, izfroknhx.k us Hkh viuh lgefr fcuk fdlh 'krZ ds ns fn;k gSA bl dkj.k mijksDr O;ogkjokn 1 ,@2013 dks blh Lrj ij fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa U;k;klaxr gSA vr,o mijksDr dkj.kksa ls vkosnu i= izLrqr dj fou; gS fd oknh }kjk izLrqr O;ogkjokn 1 ,@2013 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh n;k dh tk;sA"
7. The learned Trial Court has considered the same and allowed the application and dismissed the suit as parties are not willing to prosecute the matter.
8. While allowing the application and dismissing the civil suit based upon the outside Court settlement, the learned Trial Court has not directed for refund of the Court Fees, therefore, the only question which voiced out for consideration is whether under such circumstances, the Court Fees should be refunded to the petitioner or not.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C.Subramaniam (supra) has considered the aforesaid proposition and has held that when an out of Court compromise takes place between the parties, Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure will come into play. In the case of M.C.Subramaniam (supra), it was held as under:-
"15. In light of these established principles of statutory interpretation, we shall now proceed to advert to the specific provisions that are the subject of the present controversy. The narrow interpretation of Section 89 CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein the parties who are referred to a mediation centre Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM 4 MP-654-2024 or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their court fee; whilst the parties who similarly save the Court's time and resources by privately settling their dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not require the Court's interference to seek a settlement. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, clearly leads to an absurd and unjust outcome, where two classes of parties who are equally facilitating the object and purpose of the aforesaid provisions are treated differentially, with one class being deprived of the benefit of Section 69-A of the 1955 Act. A literal or technical interpretation, in this background, would only lead to injustice and render the purpose of the provisions nugatory -- and thus, needs to be departed from, in favour of a purposive interpretation of the provisions.
16. It is pertinent to note that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment [M.C. Subramaniam v. Sakthi Finance Ltd. Civil Misc. Petition No. 26742 of 2019, decided on 8-1-2020 (Mad)] has been affirmed by the High Courts in other States as well. Reference may be had to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd. [Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 744 : (2010) 1 AIR Kant R 279] , wherein it was held as follows : (SCC OnLine Kar para 6).
"6. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or any other proceeding get their dispute settled amicably through arbitration, or meditation or conciliation in the Lok Adalat, by invoking provisions of Section 89 CPC or they get the same settled between themselves without the intervention of any Arbitrator/Mediator/Conciliators in Lok Adalat, etc., and without invoking the provision of Section 89 CPC, the fact remains that they get their dispute settled without the intervention of the Court. If they get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89 CPC, in that event the State may have to incur some expenditure but, if they get their dispute settled between themselves without the intervention of the Court or anyone else, such as arbitrator/mediator, etc., the State would not be incurring any expenditure. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that whether the parties to a litigation get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89 CPC or they get the same settled between themselves without invoking Section 89 CPC, the party paying court fees in respect thereof should be entitled to the refund of full court fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
(emphasis supplied) Section 16 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 is in parimateria with Section 69-A of the 1955 Act, and hence the above stated principles are equally applicable to the present case.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM
5 MP-654-2024
17. The holding in Kamalamma [Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 744 : (2010) 1 AIR Kant R 279] has been followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pradeep Sonawat v. Satish Prakash [Pradeep Sonawat v. Satish Prakash, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 2235] and Pritam Singh v. Ashok Kumar [Pritam Singh v. Ashok Kumar, (2019) 1 Law Herald 721 (P&H)] , which in turn were further affirmed in Raj Kumar v. Gainda Devi [Raj Kumar v. Gainda Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 658].
18. The Delhi High Court has also taken a similar view in J.K. Forgings v. Essar Construction (India) Ltd. [J.K. Forgings v. Essar Construction (India) Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3134 : (2009) 113 DRJ 612] : (SCC OnLine Del paras 11-12, 14 & 17-19). "11. The laudable object sought to be achieved by inserting and amending these sections seems to be speedy disposal. The policy behind the statute is to reduce the number of cases by settlement. Section 89 CPC and Section 16 of the Court Fees Act are welcome step in that direction, as the number of cases has increased, it is the duty of court to encourage settlement. In present scenario of huge pendency of cases in the courts a purposive and progressive interpretation is the requirement of present hour. The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the object and the words used in the material provisions. The statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning.
12. It is very clear that the legislative intent of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act was made broad enough to take cognizance of all situations in which parties arrive at a settlement irrespective of the stage of the proceedings. It is also obvious that the purpose of making this provision was in order to provide some sort of incentive to the party who has approached the court to resolve the dispute amicably and obtain a full refund of the court fees. Having regard to this position, the present application will have to be allowed.
***
14. This is not a case where parties to the suit after long drawn trial have come to the court for settlement. Had it been the case of long drawn trial non-refund of court fees could have been justified but in such like cases courts' endeavour should be to encourage the parties and court fees attached with the plaint should be refunded as an incentive to them.
***
17. Settlement of dispute only through any of the mode prescribed under Section 89 CPC is not sine qua non of Section 89 CPC rather it prescribes few methods through which settlement can be reached, sine qua non for applicability of Section 89 is settlement between the parties outside the court without the intervention of the courts."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM
6 MP-654-2024
10. In the case of Inderjeet Kaur Raina Vs. Harvinder Kaur Anand reported in 2018 SCC Online Del. 6557, the Court has held as under:-
"19. 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 [Kamalamma v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 744 : (2010) 1 AIR Kant R 279] , the 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 incentivise 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.
Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple frivolous litigation, 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.
20. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section 89 CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasise 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 the Registry/State Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM 7 MP-654-2024 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 Respondent 1's claim."
11. In the present case, the situation is almost similar to the case as mentioned hereinabove. A review application was filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the order to the extent of the refund of the Court Fees based upon the settlement entered into between the parties. The civil suit was dismissed on an application being filed under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. by the petitioner, as the plaintiff does not want to continue the proceedings. Parties have entered into an outside Court settlement and does not want indulgence from Court for outside Court settlement. Under these circumstances, Section 89 of the C.P.C. will automatically come into play. Thus, the Trial Court has committed an error in not considering the aforesaid legal proposition and directing for refund of the Court Fees to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application for review is hereby set aside.
13. The application for review is allowed and the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled for refund of the Court Fees, as the parties have amicably settled their issue outside the Court.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AM Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 7/9/2024 11:55:59 AM