J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the plaintiff -petitioner has assailed the order dt. 05/07/2013 passed by the learned trial court to the extent it has rejected the application of the plaintiff -petitioner for refund of the court fee while permitting the plaintiff -petitioner to withdraw the suit on the basis of compromise. Counsel for plaintiff -petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 3,74,925/ -was paid by the plaintiff -petitioner by way of court fee and during the pendency of the suit itself, on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff -petitioner and as regards withdrawal of the suit is concerned, it was not objected by the defendants -respondents but the learned trial court, while allowing the plaintiff -petitioner to withdraw the suit on the basis of compromise, did not direct for refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff -petitioner. Counsel submits that in view of clear -cut provision laid down under Section 29, Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 2010, the plaintiff -petitioner is entitled to get refund of the court fee but the learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid provision and has erred in refusing to refund the court fees.
(2.) AFTER considering the submissions of counsel for the plaintiff -petitioner and going through the order impugned as well as the provisions of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 2010, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the provisions of the Act, 2010. Section 29 of the Act, 2010 provides as under: - Chapter -VII Refunds, Remissions and Exception Section 29 -Refund of fee in certain cases: (i) Where a plaint is rejected under order 7 Rule 11 CPC or a memorandum of appeal is rejected under Order 41 Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) the court shall direct refund to the plaintiff or appellant of the fee to the extent of 75% of the court fees paid on the plaint or memorandum subject to minimum deduction of rs. 250/ -. (ii) Where a memorandum of appeal is rejected only on the ground that it was not presented within the time allowed by the Law of Limitation, 75% of the fees shall be refunded. (iii) The court shall direct refund of full court fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal if the case is decided on the basis of compromise between the parties before framing of issues or before admissions of the appeal, as the case may be and 75% of the court fees if the suit or appeal is decided on the basis of compromise at any later stage. The amount of court fees ordered to be refunded by the Collector under this section shall be refunded within a period of 3 months from production of certified copy of order/judgment of the court. The refund shall be made by way of cheque or demand draft payable in favour of the plaintiff or appellant as the case may be. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, 2010, referred to supra, the order impugned passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned trial court dt. 05/07/2013 to the extent, it has refused to refund the court fee, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the issue of refund of court fee afresh in the light of the provisions of the Act, 2010, referred to supra.;