Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16314
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice J. NISHA BANU
V.VASANTHI – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNAN – Respondent
A refund of court fees is permissible when parties settle disputes amicably, as established by a liberal interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Refund - Civil Proceedings - CPC, Section 89; 1955 Act, Section 69-A - The court acknowledged a liberal interpretation of these sections permitting a refund of court fees in cases where disputes were amicably settled, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to condone a 471-day delay in filing a First Appeal against a judgment from a lower court. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the parties had amicably settled the matter during execution proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the settlement between parties and granted a refund of the court fees based on applicable legal provisions, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of relevant sections that support such a refund.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of court fees following a settlement between the parties post-judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Sections 89 of the CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act to affirm that a refund of court fees is warranted upon the amicable settlement of disputes.
Final Decision: The court granted the petition for refund and closed the appeal based on the recorded settlement.
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.]
This petition is filed to condone the delay of 471 days in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in O.S.No.67 of 2020.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant as well as the respondents/respondents submitted that the matter has been settled among the parties at the stage of execution proceedings in E.P.No.128 of 2022 in O.S.No.67 of 2020 before the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur and to that effect, he has produced a copy of e-courts status in E.P.No.128 of 2022 before this court by way of filing additional typed set of papers.
3. He would also submit that at the time of filing first appeal in AS.SR.No.144695 of 2023, the appellant has paid a court fee of Rs.2,04,940/- and since the matter has been settled between the parties, he prays for refund of the abovesaid court fee, in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras, represented by its Registrar General Vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 560.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/respondents.
5. On a perusal of e-courts status in E.P.No.128 of 2022, it seen that on
26.03.2024, recording the full satisfaction arrived between the parties, the Principal District Judge, Tirupur has terminated the execution proceedings initiated in EP No.128 of 2022. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder;
'On 08.03.2024, the property of the judgment Debtor was brought for auction by way of public auction and sold for Rs.1,62,77,000/-. In order to pay the remaining amount, the matter was posted to 18.03.2024, wherein, the auction purchaser filed a memo to that effect that he had deposited the balance sale price and now the matter is posted for appearance of the Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor today, wherein, both parties appeared and filed full satisfaction memo to that effect that the matter has been settled between the Decree Holder and judgment Debtor and Rs.23,00,000/- have been paid by the judgment Debtor each to the Decee Holders bank account through one Mahalakshmi and paid Rs.2,50,000/- directly to the petitioners. The Judgment Debtor also paid poundage amount of Rs.6,51,080/- to the auction purchaser Chitharanjan. Hence, the entire sale warrant amount due to the Decree Holder and the poundage amount due to the auction purchaser has been paid. Memo is recorded, the sale made in favour of the auction purchaser is set siee, the E.P. Is terminated and the attachment order was ordered to tbe raised by recoding the payment made to the Decree Holders each Rs.23,00,000/- and poundage amount paid to the Judgment Debtor. The poundage amount since has been paid by the Judgment Debtor to theauction purchaser. Full satisfaction recorded. E.P. Terminated, attachment order to be raised. Auction set aside less poundage.”
From the above, it is seen that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and the same is hereby recorded.
6. As far as refund of court fee is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras, represented by its Registrar General Vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 560, prayed for refund of court fee paid by the appellant in the appeal suit. In the judgment cited supra, in para 26, it was held as follows;
'26. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that section 89 CPC and section 69-A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that Section 89 CPC shall cover, and the benefit of section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to all methods
