Parties settling disputes without court intervention are entitled to a refund of the Court fees as provided under Sec. 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader who was directed to assist the Court.

2. The petitioner herein who was the plaintiff in OS No.329/2012 has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Trial Court to refund the Court fee paid by him in O.S.No.329/2012.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in OS No.329/2012 before the Court of Civil Judge at Muddebihal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') for recovery of a sum of Rs.2, 84, 749.00=25 with interest at the rate of 24%. In the said suit, he had paid Court fee of Rs.19, 400.00. The defendant in the said suit had entered appearance and filed his written statement and at the stage of final arguments, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on the ground that the dispute between the parties was settled out of the Court. Thereafterwards, an application was filed seeking refund of the Court fee paid by him. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dtd. 18/10/2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by him seeking refund of the Court fee. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the High Court of Judicature at Madras represented by its Registrar General vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others, in SLP(Civil) No.3063- 3064 of 2021 which was disposed of on 17/2/2021, in support of his case.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader who was directed to assist the Court after going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the Court fee.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C.Subramaniam's case (supra) at para 16 has observed as follows :-

"16. It is pertinent to note that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgement has been affirmed by the High Courts in other states as well. Reference may be had to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kamalamma and ors. v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd ., (2010) 1 AIR Kar. R 279, wherein it was held as follows:

"6. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or any other proceeding get their dispute settled amicably through Arbitration, or meditation or conciliation in the Lok Adalath, by invoking provisions of Sec. 89, C.P.C. or they get the same settled between themselves without the intervention of any Arbitrator/ Mediator/ Conciliators in Lokadalath etc., and without invoking the provision of Sec. 89, C.P.C., the fact remains that they get their dispute settled without the intervention of the Court. If they get their dispute settled by invoking Sec. 89, C.P.C., in that event the State may have to incur some expenditure but, if they get their dispute settled between themselves without the intervention of the Court or anyone else, such as arbitrator/mediator etc., the State would not be incurring any expenditure. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that whether the parties to a litigation get their dispute settled by invoking Sec. 89, C.P.C. or they get the same settled between themselves without invoking Sec. 89, C.P.C., the party paying Court Fees in respect thereof should be entitled to the refund of full Court Fees as provided under Sec. 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870."

(emphasis supplied)

Sec. 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is in parimateria with Sec. 69-A of the 1955 Act, and hence the above stated principles are equally applicable to the present case."

7. The judgment of this Court in the case of Kamalamma was affirmed by t