BANWARI LAL Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to challenge the order dtd. 13/12/2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kosli dismissing the application for refund of the court fees.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present case are that an application under Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for review of the judgment and decree dtd. 23/8/2021 was filed. It is stated in the application that at the time of the compromise and recording of the statement of the applicant, the applicant had specifically requested that the court fees to the tune of Rs.63,000.00 be refunded. However, inadvertently, the finding qua refund of court fees was not mentioned in the judgment and decree dtd. 23/8/2021. The trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 13/12/2021 dismissed the said application holding that since the suit was not withdrawn but was decreed in terms of the compromise, hence no refund of court fees could be ordered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by this Court in Surender Kumar Vs. Hans Raj Mandi [2021(2) RCR (Civil) 851]; Pritam Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar [2019(1) Law Herald 721]; and Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015(1) RCR (Civil) 955] to contend that even in a case in which a compromise has been effected and the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise, an application for refund of court fees could be allowed as the provisions of Sec. 89 CPC would apply and the benefit of Sec. 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 would be available to the plaintiff.