Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In an application seeking refund of the full court fees paid on the appeal, in light of the remand ordered by the High Court after setting aside the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., held that the appellant was entitled to refund of the court fees deposited on the appeal.
In the instant matter, the appellant had instituted a commercial suit which was dismissed by the Commercial Court at the threshold. The plaint was rejected qua Respondent 1 under Order VII Rule 11(A) CPC and was returned qua Respondents 2 to 5 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred appeal before the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench, vide order dated 16-09-2025, set aside the Commercial Court’s order and remanded the suit for reconsideration and held the suit was maintainable against all the respondents before the Commercial Court. Pursuant to the remand, the appellant moved the present application seeking refund of the court fees paid on the appeal, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Court Fees Act.
The Court examined Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, which clearly states that, if a suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the erstwhile CPC, the appellant would be entitled to a certificate authorising him to receive back the full amount of the court fees paid on the appeal. Relying on State of U.P. v. Chandra Bhushan Misra, the Court reiterated that the reference to Section 351 of the erstwhile CPC must be construed as a reference to Order XLI Rule 23 of the present CPC.
Applying this principle to the facts at hand, the Court noted that the Commercial Court had rejected the plaint on a preliminary objection and the appellant court set aside the rejection order, resulting in a remand. The Court held that “the remand is on one of the grounds envisaged by Order XLI Rule 23 of the CPC.”
The Court held that the appellant was entitled to refund of the court fees deposited on the appeal and directed the Registry to issue a certificate enabling refund of the court fees within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
[Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., RFA (COMM) No. 251 of 2025, CM Appl. 65049 of 2025, Decided on 15-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru, Ms. Daisy Roy, Ms. Swati Chanana, Ms. Shilpi Mehta Nanda and Ms. Yukti, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Christopher Thomas, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1