Appellate Court Obliged To Refund Court Fees If Matter Remanded Back To Original Court: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that Appellate Court must refund Court Fees if the matter is remanded back to original court.
The Court was considering an appeal against order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that despite earlier order of the trial court, the plaintiff failed to deposit the ad valorem court fees.
The single-bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed, "...it is clear that 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."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Manoj Kumar Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Arun Kumar.
Counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no requirement to deposit court fees twice as the adjudication on merits has to be made by the trial court and a certificate in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870 may be granted by the Court while disposing of the instant appeal. Reliance was placed on Chandra Bhushan Misra vs. Jayatri Devi; AIR 1969 All 142 wherein the reference was answered in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870. It was stated that the same was upheld by Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Chandra Bhushan Misra, AIR 1980 SC 591.
It was further urged that since the plaint was rejected by the trial court on one of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure and since the matter has to be heard finally by the trial court on all issues, the decision in this appeal would be in the nature of an order of remand under Order XLI Rule 23 C.P.C. Reliance was accordingly placed on Srivatsa Goswami vs. Anant Prasad Singh and Another, 2024 (162) ALR 834.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appellants cannot get advantage of decision of the Full Bench judgment in Chandra Bhushan Misra (supra).
The Court rejected the contention of the Counsel for the Respondent and observed, "Though it is true that at one place in paragraph No. 51 of the decision, the Full Bench has observed regarding removal of an 'erroneous decision' of the lower court, in the same paragraph it has been observed that 'nature of remand for one reason or the other is immaterial'. Even otherwise, the entire judgment and the ratio laid down has to be seen."
The Court referred to other relevant decisions to hold that Section-13 casts obligation on Appellate Courts to refund court fees in case the matter is remanded back.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra And 3 Others vs. State Of U. P. And 10 Others (2024:AHC:197567)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Manoj Kumar Singh
Respondent- Advocate Arun Kumar, Advocate Ashish Kumar Singh
Click here to read/ download Order: