Jage Ram Vs. Ved Kaur

Case Title: Jage Ram Vs. Ved Kaur 

Date of Order: January 28, 2025

Case No.: SLP (C) No. 723/2023

Name of Court: Supreme Court of India

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Jage Ram, had filed a second appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which was ultimately decided in terms of a settlement between the parties. The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the terms of the settlement instead of adjudicating the matter on its merits. Following this, the petitioner sought a refund of the court fees he had paid at various stages, including before the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the Second Appellate Court. However, the High Court rejected this request on the ground that no legal basis existed for granting a refund of court fees in such circumstances. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Issues

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of court fees when the case was settled between the parties without being referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, Lok Adalat, or Mediation. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s request for a refund.

Submissions of Parties

The petitioner argued that since the second appeal had been disposed of in terms of a settlement, the court fees paid at all stages should be refunded. It was contended that when disputes are amicably resolved, the refund of court fees should be granted as a measure to encourage settlements and reduce litigation. The respondents, represented by counsel, opposed the petition and argued that a refund of court fees is only permissible under specific legal provisions, which were not applicable in the present case. They submitted that since the settlement did not occur through an adjudicatory or alternative dispute resolution forum recognized by law, the petitioner was not entitled to claim a refund.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge

The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory provisions governing the refund of court fees and held that such refunds are permissible only when cases are settled through Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement (including Lok Adalat), or Mediation. The court observed that in this case, the settlement was reached privately between the parties without the intervention of any recognized dispute resolution mechanism. Therefore, the petitioner did not meet the criteria for a refund as laid down in law. The bench further noted that the High Court had correctly interpreted the legal provisions and had not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

Decision of the Judge

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of court fees since the settlement was reached outside the scope of recognized dispute resolution mechanisms. The court upheld the High Court’s decision and found no merit in the petitioner’s claim. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.