Refusal To Refund Court Fees In An Unadjudicated Lis Would Discourage Litigant From Approaching Justice Dispensation System: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the refusal to refund court fees in a lis which remained unadjudicated and expecting the litigant to pay it again would discourage the litigant from approaching the justice dispensation system.

“Such a form of docket exclusion would be highly counterproductive for any civilized society,” a division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kapthlia observed.

The court made the observation while allowing the appeal of a litigant, plaintiff in a commercial suit, challenging an order passed by a District Judge declining his request for return of court fees. However, he was permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file it afresh before appropriate court.

“In view of above discussion, we are unable to uphold the impugned order to the extent it rejects the prayer of the appellant for return/refund of the court fees and to that extent, the impugned order is set aside,” the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the court noted that the trial court expressed that the suit framed by the litigant would not fall under section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act which led him to file the application seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file it afresh before the appropriate court.

“The application was filed invoking Section 151 of the Code, but the intent and substance of the application was in the nature of process contemplated by Order VII Rule 10 of the Code. In our considered opinion, on account of financial ramifications for the plaintiff, the learned trial court ought to have treated the said application as one under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code instead of treating the same as one under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code,” the court said.

Allowing the appeal, the bench said that throttling the appeal at its inception would be “complete miscarriage of justice” and said that it finds no reason to hold that the appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

“Coming to the other aspect, the question as to whether a money recovery suit should be filed before a commercial court or a ordinary civil court is too intricate a question of law to be fathomed by a lay person. The litigant in regard to such decisions goes completely by the advice of her counsel. Where a counsel in her wisdom arrives at a particular view on any point of law and acts accordingly, but subsequently feels not confident to proceed further, the litigant ought not to be punished monetarily,” the bench said.

The court also said that while interpreting a fiscal legislation like Court Fees Act, the court should adopt a “liberal attitude” so as to lessen and not add to the burden of the litigant. It added that where the court is of the view that it is not competent to decide the lis, there is no logic in depriving the litigant refund of the court fees.

“In the present case, the fact remains that at the initial stage itself, on being pointed out the jurisdictional infirmity, the appellant fairly conceded and moved the application dated 05.11.2022 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit, the lis remains unsolved. There having been no formal adjudication of the dispute brought by the appellant before the trial court, we are of the opinion, that it would be too onerous on the appellant to make him pay court fees afresh,” the court said.

Title: AMIT JAIN v. MAHAVIR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Click Here To Read Order