Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  Lisa Gill, J. allowed the application for the refund of the fees on the ground that the matter was resolved between the parties.

An appeal was filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad where the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal which was filed for the specific performance as the dispute between the parties had been resolved amicably.The applicant/appellant further prayed for the refund of the court fee.  Reliance was placed upon the decision of Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd., 2006 SCC Online Kar 563 in which it was held that the matter being resolved by the parties amicably, amongst themselves without the intervention of the court, the court fees should be refunded.

In the above-mentioned case, the court held that the object behind Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is to encourage the parties to arrive at the settlement. It is not important that the parties are referred to the four methods but if parties themselves at the earliest stage before the court come to the settlement, it will be considered that the object of Section 89 is achieved. The court further held that “No party should be discriminated in the matter of refund of Court Fees mainly on the ground that they have settled the dispute at the earliest stage before the court without recourse to any of the methods mentioned under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.” Thus, the court directed the refund of the court fees appended with the appeal to the appellant. [Raj Kumar v. Gainda Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 658decided on 29-5-2019]

4 comments

  • The matter list above is nowhere about a suit for specific performance act. I clicked on the citation attached with the article accordingly and the same has shown me the result of Anticipatory Bail order and not of returning the court fee. kindly update me with correct detail.

  • [Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 660, decided on 30-5-2019] has no mention of “Court fee should be refunded although the dispute settled without recourse to S. 89 CPC,” Please provide the correct citation

    • Thank you for pointing it out. It has been corrected. The error is regretted.
      – Editors

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.