LAKHVINDER SINGH Vs. J P TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Lakhvinder Singh, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. The appellant has now moved C. M. No. 11008-C of 2010 alleging that the parties have amicably settled the dispute in execution petition in Permanent Lok Adalat and consequently, execution petition has been dismissed as withdrawn being fully satisfied by the Executing Court i.e. court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, vide order dated 26.08.2009 and therefore, the instant appeal be disposed of in terms of the said order and court fee paid on this appeal be ordered to be refunded in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act (in short the Act).

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. In so far as disposal of the appeal is concerned, there is no problem in disposing the appeal as infructuous in view of compromise between the parties. However, in so far as question of refund of court fee paid on the appeal is concerned, the same cannot be ordered. Section 16 of the Act stipulates that where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one mode of settlement referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of the court fee in respect of such plaint. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that even if the dispute has been settled in Permanent Lok Adalat in execution proceedings, the applicant-appellant is entitled to refund of court fee paid in the instant second appeal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has relied on judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. Bangalore and another reported as 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 0695 and also on judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court namely Vallabh Das Gupta and others vs. Geeta Bai reported as 2004 (4) R. C. R. (Civil) 85.

(3.) I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Section 16 of the Act, as noticed herein above, stipulates that the court fee shall be refundable when the Court refers the parties to any mode of settlement mentioned in Section 89 CPC. In the instant second appeal, the parties were not referred to any mode of settlement stipulated in Section 89 CPC and therefore, Section 16 of the Act is not applicable to the instant second appeal. Settlement of dispute between the parties in execution proceedings in Permanent Lok Adalat could entitle the decreeholders to refund of the court fee paid in the execution petition, but it would not entitle the appellant-defendant judgment-debtor to refund of court-fee paid on the instant second appeal. Judgment in the case of Vallabh Das Gupta (supra) is not applicable because in that case, the matter was settled in appeal under the provisions of Section 89 CPC and consequently, Section 16 of the Act was applicable in that case. In the instant case, however, the matter has not been settled between the parties in the instant second appeal, but has been settled in the execution proceedings and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to refund of court fee paid on the appeal. Judgment in the case of A. Sreeramaiah (supra) does support the contention of applicant-appellant to some extent, but with due respect, I am of the considered opinion that Section 16 of the Act is not applicable to the instant case as parties were not referred to any mode of settlement stipulated in Section 89 CPC in the instant second appeal. Moreover, even in the case of A. Sreeramaiah (supra), after settling the dispute out of court, the same was reported to the Court and therefore, court fee was ordered to be refunded. In the instant case, the settlement was effected in execution proceedings and has been reported there and the settlement has not been effected in the instant second appeal. Consequently, judgment in the case of A. Sreeramaiah (supra) is also distinguishable to some extent. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground for ordering refund of court fee paid on the appeal. Accordingly, said prayer made in the application bearing C. M. No. 11008-C of 2010 is rejected. The other prayer made in the said application for disposal of the appeal is allowed and accordingly, the appeal bearing R. S. A. No. 2431 of 2009 is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous in view of compromise effected between the parties in execution proceedings in Permanent Lok Adalat.