Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 135 (KAR)

Sri. R. Prakash v. D. M. Ravikumar

2010-02-03

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

body2010
Judgment :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dt.22.9.2007 vide Ann-C passed by the City Civil Judge (CCH-28), Bangalore and etc.) The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.5310/2007 on the file of City Civil Judge at Bangalore city, is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 22.09.2007 passed in the above said suit at Annexure ‘C’ and direct the City Civil Court to refund the entire Court Fee (institution fee) paid in O.S.No.5310/2007. 2. The petitioner is hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’. 3. Keeping in view the relief sought for, notice to Respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.5310/2007 for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- by paying Court Fee of Rs.26,875/-. On 22.09.2007, a memo was filed in the suit stating that the matter was settled and therefore, the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit and also prayed for refund of full Court Fee paid on the suit. On the basis of the memo, the Trail Court dismissed the suit as not pressed, but ordered to refund only half Court Fee to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amended Section 89 of CPC came into force on 01.07.2002. As per the decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 (Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v/s. Union of India), Court Fees Act, 1870 was amended with reference to refund of Court Fee. But the State of Karnataka has not yet amended the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short ‘the KCF & SV Act’). 5. Learned Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner is not entitled for refund of full Court Fee. 6. In para No.63 of the decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 , supra, the Apex Court has observed as under: “Regarding refund of the court fee where the matter is settled by the reference to one of the modes provided in Section 89 of the Act, it is for the State Governments to amend the laws of amendment made in the Central Court Fees Act by the 1999 amendment to the Code. The State Governments can consider making similar amendments in the State court fee legislations.” 7. The State Governments can consider making similar amendments in the State court fee legislations.” 7. The suit is for recovery of money. Section 21 of the KCF & SV Act provides that Court Fee shall be computed on the amount claimed and the plaintiff has paid Court Fee of Rs.26,875/-. Even before the defendant filed written statement in the suit, the suit was withdrawn as settled out of Court and the suit was dismissed. Section 66 of the KCF & SV Act deals with regard to refund of Court Fee on Settlement before hearing. It is useful to excerpt Section 66 of the KCF & SV Act for immediate reference: “Sec.66. Refund on settlement before hearing: Whenever by agreement of parties,- (a) any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of claim: or (b) any suit is compromised ending in a compromise decree before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim; or (c) any appeal is disposed of before the commencement of hearing of such appeal; half the amount of all fees paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit or appeal shall be ordered by the court to be refunded to the parties to whom the same have been respectively paid.” 8. As per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which came into force from 01.07.2002 says that where the court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorizing him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint. But the State of Karnataka has not yet amended the KCF & SV Act as per the direction contained in Para No.63 of Salem Advocate Bar Association case, supra. The suit came to be settled between the parties even before written statement came to be filed and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. But the Trail Court has ordered to refund half of the Court Fee and thus, refused to refund full Court Fee as the KCF & SV Act does not provide for refund of full Court Fee. The suit came to be settled between the parties even before written statement came to be filed and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. But the Trail Court has ordered to refund half of the Court Fee and thus, refused to refund full Court Fee as the KCF & SV Act does not provide for refund of full Court Fee. The Courts should encourage settlement of the dispute by any one of the methods and refund the full Court Fee. Merely because the State has not yet amended Section 66 of KSF & SV Act, is not a good ground to refuse to refund the full Court Fee paid on the suit. 9. For the reasons stated supra, the petition is allowed and the Trial Court is directed to refund full Court Fee paid on the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the State Government is directed to amend the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act as per the direction in Paragraph No.63 in the decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 (Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. V/s. Union of India). The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send copy of this order to the State Law Commission, Bangalore, for information and needful action. Granted two weeks time to file memo of appearance for Respondent No.2 by the Govt. Pleader.