Karnataka High Court
Pacl India Limited vs Sri Govindaiah on 3 April, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.3671/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
PACL India Limited,
Having its Corporate Office at
B-1/5, Paschimvihar,
New Delhi - 110063.
And its Regional Office at
No.189/44, 1st Floor,
Shalimar Arcade, 10th Cross,
Wilson Garden,
Bangalore - 560 027.
Represented by its authorized officer
Mr. Diwakar Awasthi,
S/o. late Dr. Surendra Kumar Awasthi,
Aged about 35 years.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri H.J. Krishna Murthy, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri Govindaiah,
S/o. late Maraiah,
Aged about 49 years.
2. Sri Shivakumar,
S/o. Sri Govindaiah,
Aged about 25 years.
2
Both are residing at
Shanamangala Village,
Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk.
...RESPONDENTS
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
2.12.2011 passed on I.A. in O.S.No.8866/2007, by the
City Civil Judge, Bangalore at Annexure-A.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.8866/2007 against the respondents-defendants in the City Civil Court, Bangalore to pass a decree for realization of `13,00,000/- with interest and costs. Suit having been contested after raising of issues, PW.1 deposed. At that stage, parties entered into a compromise and as per the agreement reached between the parties, defendants agreed to pay `5,75,000/- to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of the claim made in the suit. A compromise petition dated 09.09.2011 under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was presented by both the parties and the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in terms of the compromise petition and permitted 3 refund of half of the court fee. A decree dated 09.09.2011 was accordingly drawn. The plaintiff obtained the refund cheque dated 18.10.2011 for `38,563/- on 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under S.89 r/w 151 of CPC to pass an order for refund of remaining half of the court fee. The learned Trial Judge did not grant the relief on the ground that the Court has become functous- officio. Assailing the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
2. Sri H.J. Krishna Murthy, learned advocate, by placing reliance on the decisions in the case of R. Prakash Vs. Sri. D.M. Ravikumar and another, ILR 2010 KAR 2198 and in the case of A. Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian Bank Limited, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore and another, 2007(1) Kar.L.J. 67 (DB) and by making reference to S. 89 of CPC contended that the Trial Court is not justified in rejecting the application filed for refund of remaining half of the court fee and the impugned order being irrational, 4 warrants interference. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be paid the remaining half of the court fee.
3. Perused the writ record.
4. Indisputably, as on 09.09.2011, the evidence of PW.1 had been recorded and suit had stood adjourned for cross-examination of PW.1. The parties having reached an agreement, filed a compromise petitioner under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition and refund of half of the court fee was allowed. The refund so ordered was also obtained on 31.10.2011. It is on 29.11.2011, an application was filed under S.89 r/w 151 of CPC, to pass an order of refund of remaining half of the court fee to the plaintiff.
5. S.66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 is attracted only by agreement of parties - (a) any suit dismissed as settled out of court before any evidence recorded on the merits of the claim; or (b) any suit is compromised ending in a compromise 5 decree before any evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim.
6. In this case, compromise petition was filed and the suit was decreed at the stage of cross-examination of PW.1. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly ordered for refund of the half of the court fee amount.
7. In the case of A. Sreeramaiah (supra), the appellant was the first defendant. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money, which was decreed on 12.10.2004 and was questioned in the appeal and when the matter came up for consideration before the court, the court after noticing the rival contentions and having found that there was element of possibility of settlement, suggested the terms of settlement to the parties and in the light of the suggestions made by the Court, the parties settled the matter in full, out of Court and reported the same. In the said background, prayer was made for refund of full court fee by referring to S.16 of the Act, the settlement having arrived at in terms of S.89 of CPC. This 6 Court finding that 'judicial settlement' is one of the alternative methods of settlement of the disputes and the settlement having been reached by the parties, keeping in view the object behind S.89 of CPC to encourage the parties to arrive at a settlement, ordered for refund of the full court fee. The said decision has no application to the case on hand. Herein, the compromise has not been reached by the parties by any one of modes of dispute resolution as appearing in S.89 of CPC or by way of a judicial settlement. S.16 of the Act makes it clear that, if the Court refers the parties to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in S.89 of CPC, plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back the full amount of court fee paid in respect of the plaint. Hence, the said decision does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
8. In the case of R. Prakash (supra), the plaintiff filed writ petition to quash an order passed by the Trial Court and to direct refund of the entire court fee paid on 7 the plaint. Suit was one for recovery of money. A memo was filed in the suit stating that the matter was settled and the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit and sought refund of the full court fee. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, as not pressed. But ordered to refund only half of the court fee to the plaintiff. Noticing that, even before the defendant filed written statement, suit was withdrawn as settled out of the Court and also the provision under S.16 of the Act by observing that the Courts should encourage settlement of the dispute by any one of the methods and refund of full court fee, it was found that merely because the State has not yet amended S.66 of the Act, it is not a good ground to refuse to refund the full court fee paid on the suit. In the said background, the petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to refund the full court fee paid on the plaint. The said decision also has no application to the instant case.
9. The material facts of the case has been noticed supra. When the suit was at the stage of cross- 8 examination of PW.1, the parties entered into a compromise. The compromise so reached was not in any one of the modes provided under S.89 of CPC. The compromise petition filed, as at Annexure-C does not indicate that the compromise having been entered into by the parties by having recourse to any one of the modes provided under S.89 of CPC. There is not even a judicial settlement. In the circumstances, the Trial Court is justified in ordering refund of half the court fee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted, since the Act is a fiscal statute and it has to be construed strictly.
In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksj/-