The Madras High Court Bench here has said the State government could consider returning court fees paid by litigants even if the parties resolve disputes on their own without a reference by a court for settling them through Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms such as Lok Adalat.
Disposing of an appeal suit, the First Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice V. Dhanapalan said litigants who settled disputes on their own could approach the government seeking refund of court fees and the State could consider the plea “ ex gratia ad misericordia domini regis (by favour and by mercy of our Lord the King.)”
In the present case, the appellant, A. Gnanaselvan of Thanjavur, said the District Court in 2005 dismissed a civil suit filed by him against another individual following a dispute over a financial transaction. However, pending adjudication of the appeal suit before the High Court, the matter was settled between them as the defendant paid Rs.13 lakh to the appellant.
He urged the court to order refund of half of the court fees in terms of Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. However, the First Bench said the legal provisions allowed refund only if the dispute had been settled before recording of evidence by the lower court.
Though the appellant’s counsel, V.K. Vijayaraghavan, said appeal proceedings were a continuation of the suit proceedings, and therefore his client was entitled to refund, the judges said: “We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission.
The legislative intent is quite clear that this provision is applicable to a suit and that too, before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim.
“It does not apply in appeal. If the legislative intent was otherwise, the issue of refund of court fees in appeal would also have been dealt with under this provision. Not only that, even assuming that the appeal is taken as continuation of suit proceedings, the benefit would be available if no evidence was recorded, on merits, which would be a factual/procedural impossibility.”
However, pointing out that a lawyer, K. Govindarajan had brought to their notice an earlier judgement wherein the court had given liberty to a litigant to submit a representation to the government for considering refund of court fee, the judges said the present appellant too could follow the same approach.
