Karnataka High Court
Mr S Mallesh vs The Registrar on 1 September, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31445
WP No. 1987 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1987 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. S. MALLESH,
SON OF SRI. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT,
ULLAL MAIN ROAD, JNANABHARATHI POST,
BANGALORE - 560 056.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. BHARATI PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE REGISTRAR,
HON'BLE CITY CIVIL COURT,
BANGALORE CITY,
Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 560 001.
CHAYA S A
Location: High ...RESPONDENT
Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. B. V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTIONS SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
27.05.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE IN O.S.NO.1926/2016, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BY AWARDING
THE REFUND AMOUNT AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER VIDE
ANNX-A AND E AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31445
WP No. 1987 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.1926/2016 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is before this Court aggrieved by rder dated 27.05.2019 on memo filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner's request for refund of court fee, is rejected.
2. Heard Smt. Bharati Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. The petitioner filed OS No.1926/2016 with a prayer for decree declaring the documents styled as absolute sale deed dated 10.12.2015 as null and void and consequently to direct cancellation of the said document and for consequential reliefs. It is submitted that after completion of plaintiff's evidence, the parties entered into compromise. The compromise between the parties filed -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31445 WP No. 1987 of 2020 under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was recorded and the suit was disposed off by order dated 12.03.2018. Learned counsel would submit that at the time of disposal of the suit, the Court ordered refund of court fees as per law. Learned counsel would submit that in terms of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner is entitled for refund of court fee and submits that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the memo filed for refund of court fee.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of court fee since the suit was disposed off, as compromise petition was filed between the parties on completion of plaintiff's evidence. Learned counsel referring to Section 66 of the Act, would submit that only if the suit is disposed off on compromise, before the commencement of evidence, then the parties would be entitled for refund of court fee in terms of Section 66 of the Act, thus he justifies the order passed by the trial court. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:31445 WP No. 1987 of 2020
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view, that impugned order is in accordance with law and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
6. Section 66 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958 reads as follows:
"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, Hundred percent of the amount of Court fee paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suits 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,-
(a) any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the 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 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:31445 WP No. 1987 of 2020
(c) any appeal is disposed of before the commencement of hearing of such appeal; Hundred 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."
A reading of the above provision would make it clear that whenever the Court refers the parties to the suit for settlement of disputes, in terms of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and if the dispute is settled, the parties would be entitled for refund of 100% of the court fee. Under sub-section 2 (a) (b) (c) of Section 66 of the Act, parties would be entitled to refund of Court fee if the matter is settled before commencement of evidence or before hearing an appeal.
7. In the instant case, the plaintiff's evidence was complete and at that stage, the suit was disposed off by compromise. Therefore, in terms of Section 66 of the Act, the petitioner/plaintiff would not be entitled for refund of Court fee.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:31445 WP No. 1987 of 2020
8. Accordingly there is no merit and the writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:PH