Anil Kamath v. Vasu Naik. N

Saldanha, J.

1. I.A.I in this case is for condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. Normally, the Court would have had to issue notice to the Respondent and then consider the I.A.I after hearing the parties. This is a peculiar case, insofar as the respondent was the person from whom the petitioner sought to recover certain sums of money. The dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat, the parties arrived at a settlement and thereafter on 28-9-2002, a joint memo was filed before the Trial Court praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the dispute is settled amicably by virtue of the order passed by the Lok Adalat. The Court passed the necessary order dismissing the suit as settled between the parties. The entire difficulty has come up with regard to the consequential prayer because the plaintiff therein who is the petitioner before me had prayed for the refund of the Court fee and the Court has rejected that prayer on the ground that an affidavit of the plaintiff had been received in evidence and technically, the proceeding has made some headway and that therefore, the application for refund could not be granted. The reference is to the affidavit that has been filed as and by way of evidence as per the amended Civil Procedure Code. It is against this last part of the order that the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

2. The petitioners Learned Advocate points out to me that he has shown the original debtor as the formal party respondent but, that in this proceeding he is in no way concerned with the refund of Court fee because this is something between the petitioner and the state.

To this extent, the petitioners Learned Advocate is perfectly right and it is for this reason that I have dispensed with the notice being issued to the Respondent.

3. I have heard the petitioners Learned Advocate on I.A.I. I.A.I is allowed and the delay is condoned.

4. Coming to the merits, this proceeding is virtually uncontested in so far as this court is only required to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the court fee refund or not. My attention has been invited to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 which reads as follows:

Refund of fee-Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to anyone of the modes of settlement of disputes referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 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.

This Section was inserted by Act 46 of 1999. The old section 16 had been repealed and it is pointed out to me that the purpose of making this provision of refund of Court fee was in order to encourage the parties to resort to the alternate disputes resolution system as provided for under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioners Learned Advocate points out that this is precisely what the parties had done that the dispute was taken to the Lok Adalat, that the Lok Adalat resolved the entire dispute and that consequently, the case is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 16 his submission is that unlike the earlier provisions or the other provisions, that Section 16 Virtually confers on the plaintiff the benefit of obtaining a full refund of the Court fee irrespective of the stage of the proceeding or what headway the case has made. There is considerable substance in this submission and to my mind, it requires to be upheld.

5. It is very clear that the Legislative intent of Section 16 was made broad enough to take cognizance of all situations in which parties arrive at a settlement as provided for under section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code irrespective of the stage of the proceeding. 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 Civil Revision Petition will have to be allowed. The rejection order of the Trial Court as far as the refund of Court fee is concerned is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to act in consonance with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act for purposes of ensuring refund to the original plaintiff of the full amount of Court fee paid.

The Civil Revision Petition succeeds to this extent and stands, disposed of. No order as to costs.