R Prakash vs D M Ravikumar on 3 February, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

R Prakash vs D M Ravikumar on 3 February, 2010

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

 

W.P.NO.33768/2009

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANC}ALORE___

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010;'  -1 = 

 

BEFORE V
THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTECE K.    1'
WRIT PETITION No.337'68 A'0os9. %E1rQ1~ACP§;A.4I,f    *«
BHFWEEN: V' ' V% V .

Sri.R.Prakash,

S / 0.1ate Ramaiah,

Aged about 38 years,

R/a.N0.600, 3"' Cross,   :

4"*Ma1'n,   '

Har1umanthanagar,_.--_   V    
Banga1ore~»56oo19;      "  ...PETITIONER

(By Sri.Shashidf1z}r i3'é3;gg{:h:'bé;'5'Ads}L)'~*
AND:   _  _ ._

1. Sri.D.M.RaVikumar, "
S / o.D.A.Murugeshai1,' Vé
Aged about 34;. years, "
R/a.No.1030.,«.g '
7th Ivfain,..8th" vC1"os'3., 
Sr1niv3__sanag3_.r, _V   ~--
Bangaldzfc'-"560  ~ "

2. Sfate of Karnataka   '
By Rev.-enue Secretary;
_. '.',fa'dh,a.na ._S0udha, "1.
 Baxigaicre-AI..L__  ...RESPONDENTS

  
 

.. ,  /I  A'..'(/'j':'3'y "._~"_=.Vf::'_M'fJ.'A%;ja11éya Murthy, HCGP for R2)



 

 

W.P.NO.33768/2009

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 {CCI-I-28}, Bangalore
and etc.   

This Writ Petition coming on for preliniinary.§he'aﬁ_ng,_" 

day, the Court made the following:--
ORDER

The petitioner/plaintiff in o.s.Nof53 /2007* @513 the City Civil Judge at Bangalore city; is""before."th_is for ' C quashing the order dated 22,09.2OQ?«-tiiassedgg in tiie'9.b0.v'e said suit at Annexure 'C' and direct the refund the entire Court Fee (insl'titi.i:tii?:n =pa"id Ci§S';1'E--o'L§5310/ 2007.

2. The ApetitionerV_is referred to as 'the plaintiff.

3.V.Fieepi1ig in Vthevrelief sought for, notice to Respondent NL')'.'V1' id jeotinsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff ..i.f.f'yfiiled..,a suit "iI1rO.S.NO.5310/2007 for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/-- by 'i._'g'g"payi§1g,e5:;.rt Fee of Rs.26,8'75/--i Or} 22.09.2007, a memo was ﬁled ' V--V:g"iinC:the'g%suit stating that the matter was settled and therefore, the L W.P.NO.33768/2009 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 Trial Court dismissed the suit as not pressed, but ordIei'ed to refund only half Court Fee to the plaintiff. Learned Vthe petitioner submits that amended Section 89 of force if on 01.07.2002. As per the decision repeeted' in 'e:200s1:_"

e V3.44 (SALEM ADVOCATE BAR Assoc1Ar1or«s_.

INEDIA), Court Fees Act, 1870 was.o,.V:la:nended._lwitl€; fete;-elee to' refund of Court Fee. Butthe State' lliarnataka' has not yet amended the Karnataka CourtE'ees- evlaluation Act, 1958 (in short 'the KCF' 5; 'i'3_\ct'][.AA

5. Respondent No.2 submits that there is no illegality or._infirrn_ity in the impugned order and the vpetitio\~ﬁ¢§.A:;snutVentitledvforprefund of full Court Fee. * L6; .111 e.1§ere.._Nie.63 of the decision reported in (2005)6 scc V344, S1?-xpra, has observed as under:

a , 'lfiegarding refund of the court fee where if 'A ; ,.the"'r'natter is settled by the reference to one * the modes provided in Section 89 of the Act, it is for the State Governments to W.P.NO.33768/2009 Granted two weeks time to ﬁle memo of appearance for Respondent No.2 by the Govt. Pleader. { bnv*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court