The Allahabad High Court has determined that when an appeal is remanded to the lower court, the appellate court must issue a certificate authorizing the appellant to receive a full refund of the court fees submitted with the appeal.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra heard an appeal filed by Chandra Prakash Mishra and 3 Others.
The appeal arises out of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that despite earlier order of the trial court, the plaintiff has failed to deposit the ad valorem court fees.
Rahul Sripat, Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the previous order of the Court and the objection raised by the other side, the point to be decided in the appeal revolves around Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The submission is that there being no requirement to deposit court fees twice as the adjudication on merits has to be made by the trial court, a certificate in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870 may be granted by the Court while disposing of the instant appeal.
Reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench decision of the Court in Chandra Bhushan Misra vs Jayatri Devi; AIR 1969 All 142 (FB) wherein the reference was answered in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870. The said decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of UP vs Chandra Bhushan Misra, AIR 1980 SC 591.
It is further urged that since plaint has been 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 CPC. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on recent decision of the Court in Srivatsa Goswami vs Anant Prasad Singh and Another.
Per contra, Ashish Kumar Singh submitted that the appellants cannot get advantage of decision of the Full Bench judgment in Chandra Bhushan Misra (supra) and, by referring to the report, it is contended that the Full Bench was of the view that a litigant should be relieved of burden to pay court fees when an ‘erroneous decision’ of the lower court is set aside or reversed, however, in the case, since the earlier order of the trial court deciding issues on valuation/payment of court fees was assailed before this Court in First Appeal from Order under Section 6-A of the Act, 1870 and no relief was granted to the appellant, the decision cannot said to be erroneous.
“It is clear that under section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Court Fees Act 1870, 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.
There is no dispute between the parties that although before the trial court, court fees of Rs 700/- was paid, in the instant First Appeal, court fees of Rs 2,27,000/- has been deposited by the appellant.
In view of the above-referred decisions, the Court is of the view that the appellant is not liable to again pay court fees after remand and the court fees of Rs 2,27,000/- deposited before the Court, after determination made by the competent officer of the Court, is held to be sufficient in relation to the Original Suit,” the Court observed while allowing the appeal.
“The order dated 23.03.2023 and the decree dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit is set aside. Matter is remanded to the trial court for decision on merits.
The trial court shall decide the suit proceedings most exped be concluded in three n Evidence of the plaintiffs shall idence of defendants shall be concluded in next three months and the suit shall be decided on merits in next two months.
This judgment, in itself, shall be treated as a certificate in terms of Section 13 of the Act, 1870 granted to the appellant authorizing him to receive back from the Collector, Prayagraj, court fees of Rs 2,27,000/-. The Collector, being representative of the State in district and State being a party to the appeal, he is directed to ensure that the aforesaid amount of court fees is refunded to the appellant within 2 weeks after a copy of the order is placed before him. For this purpose, the Collector shall remain competent to delegate his power to any other officer under his supervision and control,” the order reads.