JOHN ARTHUR HENSHAW Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No. 16 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. Suit was one for money, which on reference to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act was settled between the parties. Compromise of the parties was recorded and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat. Ext. P1 is the copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat declined refund of the 1/10th court fee, which alone was paid in the suit, in the award, expressing a view that it cannot be refunded. Plaintiff, through his power of attorney holder, moved an application before the Sub Court for refund of the 1/10th court fee paid on the plaint. Ext. P2 is the copy of that application. That application was rejected by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext. P3 order holding that no refund had been ordered under the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext. P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Placing reliance on Vasudevan v. State of Kerala, 2003 KHC 1225 : 2003 (3) KLT 993 : 2004 (1) KLJ NOC 7 : ILR 2004 (1) Ker. 234 : AIR 2004 Ker. 43, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement of the disputes by the parties on reference to the Lok Adalat and passing of the award by that authority, the court fee paid on the plaint has to be refunded as provided under S.21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Lok Adalat was not justified in declining the refund for the reason that 1/10th court fee alone was paid on the plaint, according to the learned counsel. To sustain the argument as to the entitlement of the petitioner / plaintiff to seek for refund of the court fee paid in the plaint on settlement of the disputes in passing of an award by the Lok Adalat, support is canvassed from another decision rendered by this Court, namely, Aboobacker v. District Collector, 2006 KHC 932 : 2006 (3) KLT 670 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 512 : 2006 (3) KLJ 84.

(3.) I find both the decisions referred to by the counsel dealt with questions which have no similarity or parallel with the one presented in the case. True, in those decisions also refund of court fee after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was involved, but, not of refund of 1/10 of court fee paid in a suit at the time of institution of the suit. No authority has been brought to my notice to hold that on passing of an award by the Lok Adalat, refund can be ordered even if the court fee paid was only 1/10th of the total court fee payable on the suit. In Vasudevan v. State of Kerala, 2003 KHC 1225 : 2003 (3) KLT 993 : 2004 (1) KLJ NOC 7 : ILR 2004 (1) Ker. 234 : AIR 2004 Ker. 43, after analysing the scope of S.21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, it has been held by this Court that when a matter is referred to Lok Adalat by a Civil Court, the provisions contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act shall govern the parties in the matter of resolving the disputes and also in the matter of refund of the court fees. That was a case in which the Lok Adalat passing the award in terms of the compromise dismissed the suit as withdrawn specifically ordering that the plaintiff can approach the Court for refund of the court fee under the law. However, the Court ordered only for refund of only one half of the court fee and that order was under challenge before this Court. That decision is not helpful nor does it in any way assist the Court in deciding the question whether 1/10th of the court fee paid at the time of institution of the suit despite an order of the Lok Adalat declining the refund of such court fee can be allowed by the Court which had referred the case to the Lok Adalat, after the disposal of the suit under the award. In Aboobacker v. District Collector, 2006 KHC 932 : 2006 (3) KLT 670 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 512 : 2006 (3) KLJ 84, the non - honouring of the refund of court fee on the basis of the award passed in the Lok Adalat by the revenue authority was the disputed issue which arose for consideration. The Treasury officer insisted for the production of the cancelled court fee stamp papers with the refund order for effecting payment and the procedure so insisted upon was challenged in that case. This Court held that there was no justification for insisting the production of the court fee stamp papers to honour the bills produced with the refund order issued by the Court. That decision also does not lend any assistance to resolve the issue posed for consideration in the present case.