Plaintiff Cannot Seek Return Of Plaint & Refund Of Court Fees After Dismissal Of Suit: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that the court fee could not be refunded after a suit had been decided on merits, particularly when the petitioner had filed the application for return of the plaint and court fee, without challenging the decree therein. Justice C.S. Dias observed in this context that the judgment in the civil suit had been delivered after a full-fledged trial and a...
The Kerala High Court recently held that the court fee could not be refunded after a suit had been decided on merits, particularly when the petitioner had filed the application for return of the plaint and court fee, without challenging the decree therein.
Justice C.S. Dias observed in this context that the judgment in the civil suit had been delivered after a full-fledged trial and a complete adjudicatory process.
"Thus, the judgment falls squarely under Section 33 of the Code and was followed by a decree. A decree passed under Section 33 of the Code is appealable under Section 96 of the Code. Without challenging the decree, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application with a seemingly innocuous prayer for the return of the plaint, the plaint documents, the court fee and legal benefit fund stamps. The said course is untenable and impermissible in law, mainly because the petitioner has consciously paid the balance court fee, participated in the trial and has suffered a decree," it was observed.
As per the factual circumstances, the petitioner in this case had filed a suit against the respondents for a decree for damages, which was dismissed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod. The petitioner thereafter filed an Interlocutory Application for the refund of the court fee and the legal benefit fund stamps. Since there was a delay on the part of the court below in disposing the application, the petitioner subsequently filed an original petition before the High Court, pursuant to which the Court observed that the petitioner's remedy was to seek the return of the plaint, plaint documents and court fee. The petitioner thereafter filed another IA for the return of the plaint, plaint documents, court fee and legal benefit fund stamps, pursuant to which the High Court gave express directions to the Court below to dispose the same within 15 days. However, the Court below dismissed this application, and it is in this context that the instant petition was filed.
It was contended by Advocate M. Sasindran on behalf of the petitioner that although the court below had dismissed the suit on the finding that the suit is barred by law, the dismissal is essentially a rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. It was argued that the Court below ought to have refunded the court fee and legal benefit stamps under Section 70 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.
The counsel also relied on the decision in Janaki Amma v. Krishnan (1978), in contending that in that case, the Court had held that the dismissal of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code would only tantamount to a rejection of the plaint, in order to buttress his argument that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the court fee.
On the other hand, Senior Government Pleader V. Manu contended that only when it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by law, the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code gets attracted; otherwise, the courts are obliged to proceed under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code, frame issues and then determine the suit. He further argued that once the court completes the adjudicatory process, a party is precluded from aspiring for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fees.
The Standing Counsel for KSFE Advocate Salil Narayanan K.A. additionally submitted that the petitioner could have withdrawn the suit after the respondents had filed their written statement contending the suit to not be maintainable, but instead, they had adopted a 'wait and watch' policy. He argued that the petitioner’s remedy was to "file a right royal appeal challenging the decree, instead of resorting to the present experimental course", while adding that the petition was devoid of merit.
The Court in this case perused Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court noted that as per Order 7 Rule 11 (c), if the requisite stamp paper is not supplied within the prescribed time period, the courts have no other option but to reject the plaint which would be done before the parties go for trial, while as per Order 7 Rule 11 (d), the suit should appear from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
The Court observed that it was trite in law that if the suit did not appear to be barred from the statement in the plaint, then the court has to proceed to the next stage, and adjudicate the suit.
The Court noted that the lower court had initially formulated 7 issues in the case and proceeded with the trial. It was after the completion of the trial that the Court below noted that the suit was barred by law, and framed the additional issue 8, as to whether the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the light of Section 64 (3) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Rule 47 of the Kerala Chit Funds Rules, 2012, and proceeded to dismiss the suit having found it to be hit by Section 64 (3) Chit Funds Act, 1982. It was following this that the petitioner had filed the application for the return of the plaint, the plaint documents and the refund of the court fee of Rs. 8,18,400/- and the legal benefit fund stamp of Rs.1,00,000/-, without challenging the decree.
The Court in this case perused Section 70 of the Kerala Courts Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, which deals with 'Refund of fee paid by mistake or inadvertence', and took note of the Division Bench ruling in Linsaraj v. State of Kerala (2018), wherein it was held that the said provision would come into play only when there is no adjudicatory process.
It is in this context the Court found that as the adjudicatory process had been completed, the judgment delivered, and the petitioner had also paid the balance court fee, and suffered the decree, the application was hence, innocuous.
"I don’t find any mistake or inadvertence committed by the court below, as alleged by the petitioner. The attempt in Ext.P3 was purely experimental in nature, which has been rightly rejected by the court below by Ext.P6 order. The court below has not overstepped its authority or powers, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India", the Court declared while dismissing the petition.
Case Title: S. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 32