Refusal To Refund Court Fees In A Lis That Remained Unadjudicated Will Discourage Litigant From Approaching Justice Dispensation System: Delhi HC

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

The Court further added that such a form of docket exclusion would be highly counterproductive for any civilized society.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia was dealing with a case wherein the appellant had filed a suit for recovery. Although, the cause of action pleaded by the appellant was a personal loan advanced by him to the respondents, but the counsel for appellant in his wisdom filed the suit as commercial suit.

Thereafter the appellant filed application seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit before appropriate court and also sought return/refund of the original court fees.

The trial court partly allowed the same, thereby permitting the appellant to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit before appropriate court but declined the prayer for return of court fees.

Advocate Pratap Singh Rawat appeared for the appellant and Advocate Mukul Kumar Baid appeared for Respondent.

The High Court observed that “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 further said that 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 Court observed.

The Court held that where the court dealing with the lis believes that it is not competent to decide the same, there is no logic in depriving the litigant refund of the court fees.

Thus the Court set aside the Trial Court Order to the extent it rejects the prayer of the appellant for return/refund of the court fees.

Cause Title- Amit Jain v. Mahavir International PVT LTD & ORS (Neutral Citation-2023:DHC:3090-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment