MITHUN T. ABRAHAM Vs. SUB-COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 6th plaintiff in O.S.No.232 of 2013 of the Additional Sub Court-II, Kottayam. The suit was filed for realisation of amounts due from the defendants. The dispute was settled amicably, pursuant to a reference to the Lok Adalat under Sec. 89(1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereupon, Ext.P1 award, incorporating the terms of the settlement, was passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Kottayam. As per Clause 4.6 of the award, the court fee paid in the suit was to be returned to the petitioner and the other plaintiffs. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Exts.P2 application seeking refund of an amount of Rs.5,042.00 paid in excess of the court fee payable and P3, for refund of Rs.44,98,400.00 paid towards court fee. By Ext.P4 certificate, an amount of Rs.41,83,512.00 was ordered to be refunded after deducting Rs.3,14,888.00. This original petition is filed aggrieved by the deduction of Rs.3,14,888.00, which according to the petitioner is without authority and hence, illegal.

(2.) Adv. Harish Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Sec. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('the Act', for short) read with Sec. 16 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, makes it obligatory to refund the entire amount of court fee paid. To bolster the contention, reliance is placed on the decision in Vasudevan V. A v. State of Kerala and others [AIR 2004 Kerala 43].

(3.) Learned Government Pleader contended that the practice being followed is to deduct 7% of the court fee, even in matters settled before the Adalat.