Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya, entered into an agreement to sell immovable property with respondents No.3 and 4. When the agreement was not specifically performed, the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.274 of 2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, seeking specific performance of contract. The respondents filed a written statement resisting the claim. The learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, considering the 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, 1908. The parties agreed to refer the dispute to mediation. The mediation succeeded and the suit was disposed of in terms of the settlement. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to refund the entire court fees paid in the suit, and to quash the notification dated 08.05.2013 issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, on the ground that it is contrary to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The court held that Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 does not provide for refund of court fees upon settlement of a suit through alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 CPC. The provision only deals with refund of court fees on a plaint being rejected or a suit being dismissed for default. The court further held that the notification dated 08.05.2013 issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 is valid and not contrary to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 or Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of court fees.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Refund upon Settlement - Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner sought refund of court fees after his suit was referred to mediation under Section 89 CPC and settled. The court held that Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 does not provide for refund of court fees upon settlement through alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 CPC. The provision only deals with refund of court fees on a plaint being rejected or a suit being dismissed for default. (Paras 1-6) B) Court Fees - Power to Refund - Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 - The court upheld the validity of the notification dated 08.05.2013 issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, which provides for refund of court fees in cases referred to Lok Adalat or mediation. The court held that the notification is not contrary to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 or Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. (Paras 7-10) C) Legal Services Authority Act - Refund of Court Fees - Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - The court observed that Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 do not mandate refund of court fees in cases settled through Lok Adalat or mediation. The notification dated 08.05.2013 is a valid exercise of power under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of court fees paid in a civil suit that was disposed of through alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the notification dated 08.05.2013 issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 is ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of court fees, and the notification dated 08.05.2013 is valid and not contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 or Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Law Points
- Section 16 of the Court Fees Act
- 1870 does not provide for refund of court fees upon settlement of a suit through alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 CPC
- Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- 1959 empowers the State Government to make rules for refund of court fees
- Notification dated 08.05.2013 issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- 1959 is valid and not contrary to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act
- 1870 or Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act
- 1987
