Parties agreeing to out-of-court settlement without judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC can’t be denied benefit of refund of court fees

In The High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General vs M.C. Subramaniam & ors., several petitions and appeals were filed by both parties before the High Court. While the appeals were still pending consideration before the High Court, the parties entered into a private out­ of­ court settlement, thus resolving the controversy between them. In view of this, Respondent No. 1 filed a memo before the High Court, seeking permission to withdraw Appeal Suits Nos. 876/2012 and 566/2013. Such permission, along with a direction to refund the court fee deposited by Respondent No.1, was granted by the High Curt. Despite the above stated orders of the High Court, the Registry orally refused Respondent No.1’s request for refund of court fees, on the ground that such refund is not authorised by the relevant rules. The Respondent appealed to the High Court which directed the Registrar to initiate the refund. The Registrar challenged the order before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s contentions is that Section 69­A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter, ‘1955 Act’) only contemplates refund of court fees in those cases where the Court itself refers the parties to any of the alternative dispute settlement mechanisms listed in Section 89 of the CPC. That hence it does not apply to circumstances such as in the present case, where the parties, without any reference by the Court, privately agreed to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of the CPC.

The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court observed that the provisions of Section 89 of CPC must be understood in the backdrop of the longstanding proliferation of litigation in the civil courts, which has placed undue burden on the judicial system, forcing speedy justice to become a casualty. As the Law Commission has observed in its 238th Report on Amendment of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Allied Provisions, Section 89 has now made it incumbent on civil courts to strive towards diverting civil disputes towards alternative dispute resolution processes, and encourage their settlement outside of court (Para 2.3). These observations make the object and purpose of Section 89 crystal clear – to facilitate private settlements, and enable lightening of the overcrowded docket of the Indian judiciary. This purpose, being sacrosanct and imperative for the effecting of timely justice in Indian courts, also informs Section 69­A of the 1955 Act, which further encourages settlements by providing for refund of court fee. This overarching and beneficent object and purpose of the two provisions must, therefore, inform this Court’s interpretation thereof.

It is well­settled that the Courts may, in order to avoid any difficulty or injustice resulting from inadvertent ambiguity in the language of a statute, mould the interpretation of the same so as to achieve the true purpose of the enactment. This may include expanding the scope of the relevant provisions to cover situations which are not strictly encapsulated in the language used therein.

The narrow interpretation of Section 89 of CPC and Section 69­A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the Petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein parties who are referred to a Mediation Centre or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their court fee; whilst parties who similarly save the Court’s time and resources by privately settling their dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not require the Court’s interference to seek a settlement. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, clearly leads to an absurd and unjust outcome, where two classes of parties who are equally facilitating the object and purpose of the aforesaid provisions are treated differentially, with one class being deprived of the benefit of Section 69­A of the 1955 Act. A literal or technical interpretation, in this background, would only lead to injustice and render the purpose of the provisions nugatory – and thus, needs to be departed from, in favour of a purposive interpretation of the provisions.