DATED

29-8-2020

PASSED

BY

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 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

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 petitioner9s 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 8the Act9 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. 3 (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 Co