C.R.P.(PD).No.2309 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.11.2019

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

C.R.P.(PD).No.2309 of 2009

K.Swaminathan

... Petitioner

v.

1. M. Visalakshi

2. V.N. Azhagesan

3. Sathyalakshmi

... Respondents

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

against the memo dated 03.07.2009 in O.S.No.271 of 2008 on the file of

the District Judges Court, Fast Tract Court No.III at Erode.

For Petitioner : Mr.K. Mukunth

for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan

Special Government Pleader (CS)

Assisted by Dev. Narendran

Government Advocate

Page 1 / 24

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(PD).No.2309 of 2009

ORDER

Since the issue involved in the present Civil Revision Petition is

with regard to refund of the full court fee, this Court directed the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner to serve the papers on the learned

Special Government Pleader (C.S.) enabling him to make his submissions

on the issue. In view of the same, Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned

Special Government Pleader (CS), made his submissions in the Civil

Revision Petition, though the Government is not a party.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.271 of 2008 on the file of the District

Court, Fast Tract Court No.III, Erode has filed the above Civil Revision

Petition to set aside the memo dated 03.07.2009 filed in O.S.No.271 of

2008.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.271 of 2008 for

specific performance. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into a

compromise and also executed a joint memorandum of compromise on

Page 2 / 24

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(PD).No.2309 of 2009

03.07.2009.

4. Mr.K. Mukunth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the suit was referred before the Lok Adalat for arriving at

a compromise on 22.06.2009 and the matter was posted on 03.08.2009

before the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, in view of urgency of the matter,

the parties jointly filed a memo to advance the hearing and to place the

suit before the Trial Court, viz., Fast Track Court, Dharapuram. By the

joint memo, the parties requested the Legal Services Committee,

Dharapuram to return the matter back to the Fast Track Court,

Dharapuram for recording the settlement. Accordingly, the bundle was

returned to the Fast Track Court, Dharapuram, where the parties

reported settlement and also filed a memo seeking for dismissal of the

suit as settled out of the Court and for refund of the full court fee.

5. The Trial Court, recorded the joint memo filed by the

parties.

6.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended

that since the matter has been settled out of the Court, the plaintiff is

Page 3 / 24

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(PD).No.2309 of 2009

entitled to get refund of the full court fee paid by him.

6.2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in

support of his contentions, has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) 2010 (8) SCC 24 [Afcons Infrastructure Limited and

another v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private

Limited and others] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

follows:-

“ ... 12. Judicial settlement” is a term in

vogue in USA referring to a settlement of a civil case

with the help of a Judge who is not assigned to

adjudicate upon the dispute. “Mediation” is also a well-

known term and it refers to a method of non-binding

dispute resolution with the assistance of a neutral third

party who tries to help the disputing parties to arrive at

a negotiated settlement. It is also a synonym of the

term “conciliation”. (See Black's Law Dictionary, 7th

Edn., pp. 1377 and 996.)

...

21.6. Justice G.P. Singh extracts four

conditions that should be present to justify