SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYA Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction to the State of Maharashtra for refund of entire amount of court fees to such of the litigants including the petitioner who have presented proceedings in the Civil Court and those proceedings have been disposed of in adaptation of any of the modes prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner also seeks to quash notification dated 08.05.2013, issued by Law & Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, bearing No.HCA.2010/C.R.87/D19, issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, on the ground that the notification is contrary to provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that Respondent No.2 has no authority in law to issue a notification contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and prays that all such notifications and rules, run contrary to the aforesaid provisions, be quashed and set aside.

(3.) The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell immovable property situate at Aurangabad with Respondents No.3 & 4. Since the agreement to sell was not specifically performed, petitioner presented Special Civil Suit No.274 of 2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, praying for grant of relief of specific performance of contract. Respondents No.3 & 4 resisted the claim by filing written statement. Learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, before whom suit was pending, considering nature of the suit, directed the parties to adopt a mode for alternate dispute resolution prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. mediation. On reference to mediator, the parties, after due deliberations and with the aid of the mediator, resolved their dispute amicably and terms of settlement were presented to the Court. The mediator also submitted his report informing that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties. On 07.04.2014, terms of compromise were presented to the Court and ultimately the trial Court was pleased to dispose of the suit and passed decree in terms of the compromise. The petitioner requested for refund of total court fees, however, learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, on consideration of notification issued by the Government, referred to above, was pleased to permit refund of only 50% court fees.