IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29268 of 2009(O) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN ARTHUR HENSHAW, "PARROTTS", PAROTTS CLOSE, CROXLLEY GREEN, RICKMONSWORTH, HERTS, WD 33 J Z, ENGLAND. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER REJI PRASAD, "DREAMS", SREENIVASAPURAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DIST BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SULOCHANA @ BABY, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, U.N.SUHRUTH VILLA, THOTTAVARAM, ATTINGAL. 2. RAJESH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, U.N.SUHRUTH VILLA, THOTTAVARAM, ATTINGAL. 3. BHARATHI, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN, U.N.SUHRUTH VILLA, THOTTAVARAM, ATTINGAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29268 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. Suit was one for money, which on reference to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act was settled between the parties. Compromise of the parties was recorded and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat. Ext.P1 is the copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat declined refund of the 1/10 th court fee, which alone was paid in the suit, in the award, expressing a view that it cannot be refunded. Plaintiff, through his power of attorney holder, moved an application before the Sub Court for refund of the 1/10 th court fee paid on the plaint. Ext.P2 is the copy of that application. That application was rejected by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P3 WPC.29268/09 2 order holding that no refund had been ordered under the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Placing reliance on Vasudevan v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 993), the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement of the disputes by the parties on reference to the Lok Adalat and passing of the award by that authority, the court fee paid on the plaint has to be refunded as provided under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Lok Adalat was not justified in declining the refund for the reason that 1/10 th court fee alone was paid on the plaint, according to the learned counsel. To sustain the argument as to the entitlement of the petitioner/plaintiff to seek for refund of the court fee paid in the plaint on settlement of the disputes in passing of an award by the Lok Adalat, support is canvassed from another decision rendered by this Court, namely, Aboobacker v. District Collector (2006 (3) KLT 670). WPC.29268/09 3 3. I find both the decisions referred to by the counsel dealt with questions which have no similarity or parallel with the one presented in the case. True, in those decisions also refund of court fee after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was involved, but, not of refund of 1/10 th of court fee paid in a suit at the time of institution of the suit. No authority has been brought to my notice to hold that on passing of an award by the Lok Adalat, refund can be ordered even if the court fee paid was only 1/10 th of the total court fee payable on the suit. In Vasudevan v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 993), after analysing the scope of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, it has been held by this Court that when a matter is referred to Lok Adalat by a civil court, the provisions contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act shall govern the parties in the matter of resolving the disputes and also in the matter of refund of the court fees. That was a case in which the Lok Adalat passing the award in terms of the compromise dismissed the suit as withdrawn specifically WPC.29268/09 4 ordering that the plaintiff can approach the court for refund of the court fee under the law. However, the court ordered only for refund of only one half of the court fee and that order was under challenge before this Court. That decision is not helpful nor does it in any way assist the Court in deciding the question whether 1/10 th of the court fee paid at the time of institution of the suit despite an order of the Lok Adalat declining the refund of such court fee can be allowed by the court which had referred the case to the Lok Adalat, after the disposal of the suit under the award. In Aboobacker v. DistrictCollector (2006 (3) KLT 670), the nonhonouring of the refund of court fee on the basis of the award passed in the Lok Adalat by the revenue authority was the disputed issue which arose for consideration. The Treasury officer insisted for the production of the cancelled court fee stamp papers with the refund order for effecting payment and the procedure so insisted upon was challenged in that case. This Court held that there was no justification for insisting the production of the court fee stamp papers to honour the bills produced with the refund order issued by the court. That decision also does WPC.29268/09 5 not lend any assistance to resolve the issue posed for consideration in the present case. 4. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act reads as follows: “21.Award of Lok Adalat:- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.” Section 16 of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870 has been repealed and the new Section applicable, introduced by Act 46 of 1999, empowers the plaintiff to get a certificate from the court to receive the full amount of the fee paid in the plaint WPC.29268/09 6 where the parties to the suit are referred to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute under Section 89 of the CPC, 1908 (5 of 1908). The plaintiff then shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint. However, as pointed out in Aboobacker v. District Collector (2006 (3) KLT 673), the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act are not applicable to the State and the refund of court fee is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. There is no provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act enabling a party to get refund of the entire court fee, when the matter is compromised between the parties. Since the Legal Services Authorities Act is a Central Act, and the provisions thereof are binding on the parties to the proceedings under that Act, in the matter of refund of court fee the spirit behind Section 21 of that Act has to be looked into. Section 16 in the Indian Court Fees Act referred to in Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act has undergone drastic changes by repeal and introduction of a new provision in the matter of refund. Still, WPC.29268/09 7 it has to be noted that the provisions of Indian Stamp Act are inapplicable in the State in view of the application of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Such being the position, as there is no provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act enabling refund of the court fee, where the fee has been paid only to the extent covered by Section 4A of that Act, as at the time of the institution of the suit, it is not possible to order refund of such court fee paid on passing of an award by the Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. 5. The apex court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (AIR 2005 SC 3353) after having dilated over the question of refund of court fee when a matter is settled by reference under any mode of provisions under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has expressed the view that the State Government has to amend the laws in tune with the Central Court Fees Act. The relevant observations made by the apex court read thus: WPC.29268/09 8 “Regarding refund of the court fee where the matter is settled by the reference to one of the modes provided in Section 89 of the Act, it is for the State Government to amend the laws on the lines of amendment made in Central Court Fee Act by 1999 Amendment to the Code. The State Governments can consider making similar amendments in the State Court Fee legislations”. So much so, unless necessary amendments are made in the court fee legislation of the State, namely, State Court Fees Act, it is not possible nor permissible to order refund of the 1/10 th court fee paid under Section 4A of the Act on the institution of the suit. Since remittance of court fee and refund thereof is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees Act in the State, it is not possible to order refund of 1/10 th court fee paid on the institution of the suit as desired by the petitioner for the reason that the suit claim has been settled in Lok Adalat placing reliance upon Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Unless necessary amendments are made in the State Court Fee Legislation in tune with the provisions for refund under the above Section of the Legal Services Authorities Act, refund of 1/10 th court fee paid on WPC.29268/09 9 institution of the suit cannot be granted. 6. The impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining to interfere with the award with respect to the refund of 1/10 th court fee paid on the suit which had been canvassed for is perfectly correct as the court which referred the case to Adalat is bound by the award. The apex court in State of Punjab & another v. Jalour Singh & others (AIR 2008 SC 1209) has held that whether an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties no appeal lie to any court. When the Lok Adalat has declined 1/10 th court fee paid on the plaint at the time of institution while passing an award on the basis of the settlement, the court which referred it, cannot modify that part of the order and direct refund of that amount to the plaintiff. If any party has to challenge such an award passed on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, that too, on very limited grounds. So much so, there is no impropriety in Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge and it is proper WPC.29268/09 10 and correct. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp