"Section 89 CPC Extends To Compromises Entered Outside Court Also": Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Refund Of Court Fees

The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin while setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court allowed the petition and held the petitioner entitled to get the refund of court fees.

The case came up as a result of an application filed under Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for review of the judgment and decree by the Trial Court. It was stated in the application that at the time of the compromise and recording of the statement of the applicant, the applicant had specifically requested the refund of the court fees to the extent of Rs.63,000/-. However, the refund of court fees was not mentioned in the judgment and decree. The application for the same was rejected by the Trial Court holding that since the suit was not withdrawn but was decreed in terms of the compromise no refund of court fees will be allowed.

After considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, court held that in present case the matter has been settled between the parties, and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise, therefore, observation of the Trial court is wholly misplaced.

In the present case, undisputedly, the matter has been settled between the parties and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. The observation of the trial Court that since the suit was not withdrawn, hence the prayer for refund of court fee would not be sustainable being wholly misplaced.

Court further held that Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is interpreted and extended to compromises entered into between the parties outside the Court also. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the settlement has taken place and the suit has been decreed in terms of the said settlement.

Section 89 CPC has been interpreted and has been extended to compromises entered into between the parties outside the Court also. In the present case the settlement has taken place and the suit has been decreed in terms of the said settlement.

Reliance was placed on Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 955, where it was held that When such settlement is arrived at in terms of Section 89 CPC, provision of Section 16 of the Act, which is beneficial and benevolent provision in its domain and content needs to be invoked and the Court concerned is also required to inform the plaintiff that he is entitled to get back the court fee affixed by him on the plaint. 

Therefore, in the light of the reasons discussed above, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the petitioner was held entitled to refund of court fees.

Case Title : Banwari Lal v. Mool Chand and Others 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 75

Click Here To Read/Download Order