Karnataka High Court
Sunny Joseph vs The Chief Administrative Officer on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.8947 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SUNNY JOSEPH
S/O M J JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.8, NIRMITHA
4TH CROSS, SRINIVASA EXTENSION
BEGUR ROAD, HONGASANDRA
BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN), RAMANAGARA
RAMANAGAR COURT COMPLEX
RAMANAGARA - 571 511.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RUPA K.R., HCGP A/W
SMT. ARCHITHA SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 29-8-2020 PASSED BY THE
ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGAR IN
O.S NO.484/2013 ON I.A FILED U/SEC.151 OF CPC VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2020, passed in O.S.No.484/2013 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
Petitioner along with others filed suit in O.S.No.484/2013 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara against the defendants therein. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement. When the case was set for petitioner's evidence, the husband of the 3 petitioner was examined as PW-1. When the case was at the stage of cross-examination of PW-2, parties to the suit have entered into a compromise and terms of compromise was reduced into writing in a compromise petition and same was filed before the Trial Court on 18.11.2009. The Trial Court accepted the compromise petition and decreed the suit in terms of compromise petition. The petitioner filed an application to refund the Court fee paid by the petitioner. The Trial Court vide its order dated 29.08.2020, declined to refund the Court fee. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the parties to the suit have entered into a settlement out of Court and filed an application under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for refund of Court fees. The Trial Court has declined to refund the Court fees paid by the petitioner. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL VS. M.C.SUBRAMANIAM & ORS., reported in LL 2021 SC 97, and prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. K.N.Nitish, learned counsel and Smt. K.N.Roopa, learned HCGP, supports the impugned order.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and 12 others instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of various sale deeds and gift deeds in O.S.No. 5 484/2013 before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,72,465/- towards Court fees in the said suit. The petitioner being the power of attorney holder of plaintiff No.1 tendered his evidence on behalf of other plaintiffs as PW-1. When the case was posted at the stage of cross-examination of PW-2, the parties entered into compromise and compromise was reduced into writing in a compromise petition which was filed before the Trial Court on 18.11.2019. The compromise petition was accepted by the Trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2019, and suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition. The petitioner filed an application under Section 66 of the Act for refund of full Court fees. The Trial Court observed that at the time of entering into compromise, evidence of the plaintiffs was commenced and the case was not disposed of before Lok Adalat or through any other 6 mode as provided under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and declined to refund the Court fees as provided under Section 66 of the Act.
8. In order to consider the contention of the parties whether the refund of Court fees is permissible under Section 66 of the Act, it is necessary to extract Section 66 of the Act which reads as under:
"66. Refund on settlement before hearing. - (1) Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the dispute is settled, seventy five percent of the amount of Court fee paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid.
(2) In cases not covered by sub-
section (1); Whenever by agreement of parties:-
7
(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;
Seventy five percent of the amount of Court fee 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 who have paid such fee."
9. Section 66 of the Act provides that refund on settlement before hearing where parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of CPC and the dispute is settled, 75% of the amount of the Court fees paid in respect of the claim or claims shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties. Insofar as modes of settlement is concerned, Section 89 of CPC provides 8 settlement of dispute outside the Court, which reads as under:
"89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court. - (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for
(a) arbitration;
(b) conciliation;
(c) Judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or
(d) mediation.
(2) Where a dispute has been referred:
(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or Conciliation were 9 referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;
(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;
(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to the suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;
(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."
10. After giving due consideration to the above provisions, they must be interpreted liberally in a manner that would serve their object and purpose 10 construing them narrowly would lead to a situation wherein parties would settle their dispute through a mediation center or other centers of alternative judicial settlement under Section 89 of CPC would be entitled to claim refund of the Court fee, while parties who settle or negotiate the disputes privately will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89 of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to consider the identical issue in the case of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (supra), wherein it has observed as under:
"20. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiation and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred 11 to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under section 89, CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time Court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the Respondent No.1's claim.
21. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that section 89 of the CPC and section 69-A of 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of out of Court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been 12 legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, I.e., respondent No.1 herein would be entitled to refund of Court fee."
(emphasis supplied)
11. The said judgment is aptly applicable to the present case in hand. This Court, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is of the opinion that if a private settlement or negotiation is arrived at between the parties, then they shall cover under Section 89 of CPC. Admittedly in the present case, the parties have entered into compromise and presented the same before the Trial Court. The Trial Court accepted the compromise petition. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit of refund of Court fee as per Section 66 of the Act. The Trial Court 13 committed an error in declining to refund the Court fee.
12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated
29.08.2020, is set aside. The application
filed by the petitioner is allowed. Trial
Court is directed to refund the Court fee under Section 66 of the Act.
SD/-
JUDGE RD