Court fee cannot be refunded after suit is decided on merits: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that court fees cannot be refunded after a suit is decided on merits [S Surendran v State of Kerala and others]..Justice CS Dias held so while considering a plea filed by a person against the order of a trial court which dismissed his application to return his plaint, plaint documents, court fee, and legal benefit fund stamps.The single-judge held that the course of action adopted by the petitioner in filing said application without appealing against the decree itself, was untenable and impermissible in law. “The judgment falls squarely under Section 33 of the Code and was followed by a decree. A decree passed under Section 33 of the Code is appealable under Section 96 of the Code. Without challenging the decree, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application with a seemingly innocuous prayer for the return of the plaint, the plaint documents, the court fee and legal benefit fund stamps. The said course is untenable and impermissible in law, mainly because the petitioner has consciously paid the balance court fee, participated in the trial and has suffered a decree,” the Court said in its order..The petitioner in the present case contended that although the trial court had dismissed the suit on the finding that the suit is barred by law, the dismissal was essentially a rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Thus, the trial court committed a mistake in dismissing the suit, it was submitted.Therefore, the trial court should also refund the court fees and legal benefit stamps under Section 70 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, he further argued..On the other hand, Senior Government Pleader V Manu, appearing for the State, argued that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC is attracted only when the statement in the plaint of the suit is barred by law. Otherwise, Order 14 Rule2 of CPC should be proceeded with, it was submitted. Under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC, a decree must be drawn as contemplated under Section 33 of the Code and once a decree is passed, it is appealable under Section 96 of the Code, he said.He further argued that this petition is liable to be dismissed because once the court completes the adjudicatory process, a party is precluded from aspiring for the return of the plaint and refund of the court fees..The High Court noted that the judgment and decree of the trial court have not been challenged by the petitioner and have attained finality and the attempt of the petitioner was purely experimental..Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition as it did not find any mistake with the trial court below rejecting the application of the petitioner to return the court fee."I don’t find any mistake or inadvertence committed by the court below, as alleged by the petitioner. The attempt in Ext.P3 was purely experimental in nature, which has been rightly rejected by the court below by Ext.P6 order. The court below has not overstepped its authority or powers, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is meritless and sans substance, and is hence dismissed," the order said..The petitioner was represented by advocate S Sasindran.The respondent was represented by advocate Salil Narayanan..[Read Judgment]