Appellate Court Must Refund Court Fees If Matter Is Remanded Back To Original Court: Allahabad High Court

Discussing Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that once an appeal is remanded back to the original Court for any reason, the Appellate Court ought to grant a certificate of authorization to the appellant to receive back the full court fees paid along with the memorandum of appeal.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra held

“Section 13 casts an obligation upon the appellate court to grant a certificate to the appellant authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fees paid on the memorandum of appeal and the proviso restricts such right to the extent of the amount originally paid.”

Appellants approached the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction challenging the rejection of their plaint on grounds that he had failed to deposit the court fees. Appellants-plaintiffs pleaded that it had already deposited the entire court fees and once the appeal against the order was allowed and plaint was revived, the court fees for the appeal ought to have been treated as the court fees in the suit.

It was further argued that once the suit had been remanded, adjudication was to be made on merits. The Appellate Court ought to have granted a certificate under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act to the appellant, it was argued.

Per contra, counsel for respondents argued that the certificate under Section 13 can only be granted when an “erroneous decision” of the trail court is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh adjudication. It was argued that since the High Court in earlier appeal had only decided issues regarding valuation/payment of court fees and no relief was granted to the Appellants, they were not entitled to a certificate.

The question of law before the Court was

“Whether in a case where decision of the trial court rejecting the plaint is reversed in Appeal, plaintiffs are required to again deposit court fees before the trial court after remand?”

Section 13 of the Court Fees Act provides for refund of Court fees deposited along with memorandum of appeal when, inter alia, the appeal is rejected, or suit is remanded back to the trail court. It provides for issuance of certificate by the Appellate Court authorizing the appellant to receive back the full court fees paid from the Collector.

The Court observed that in State of U.P. v. Chandra Bhushan Misra, the Supreme Court had held that in case of remand of a case by the appellate court on any ground entitles the appellant to refund of court fees paid at the time of filing the memorandum of appeal. It was observed that the Supreme Court had held that the reason for remand was immaterial.

Further reliance was placed on Suresh Kumar Chowkse v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with provision pari materia to Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, held that

“When the appellate Court remanded the case for complete re-trial, it was the bounden duty of the appellate Court to grant the said certificate to the appellant authorising him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. This provision of the Court-fees Act is enacted with a view that when a re-trial is ordered by the appellate Court and the case is remanded to the trial Court for complete re-trial, then the Court-fees paid by the appellant should not be withheld as a measure of penalty, the reason being that now for the second time if the party becomes aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, then he shall have to file an appeal again in the appellate Court and then he shall be required to pay the Court-fees again.”

The MP High Court classified this as double jeopardy to the appellant.

Accordingly, allowing the appeal, Justice Shailendra held that the appellant was entitled to refund of the entire court fees deposited while filing appeal before the High Court and was not to pay the court fees again before the Trial Court. The Court directed that the judgment be treated as a certificate in terms of Section 13 of the Act.

Case Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra And 3 Others v. State Of U. P. And 10 Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1020 of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order