##PAGE1##

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 23.09.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.10.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.Nos.4064 & 4106 of 2026 CRP.No.4064 of 2026:

Susheela Kawar ..Petitioner Vs.

M.Pettu Lakshmi .. Respondent Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2023 in O.S.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Ponneri.

CRP.No.4106 of 2026:

S.Ranjani (Died) 1.S.Jaya Prakash 2.S.Siva Prakash 3.S.Ravi Prakash

4.S.Sukumar

5.R.Thulasi

6.S.Rajasekaran

7.S.Venkatesh Babu

8.S.Ramachandran ..Petitioners Vs.

1.Gopi @ Gopala Krishnan

2.Hacienda Realtor Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Dr.G.Madhusudhana Reddy, having office at No.766, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ..

Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Trial Court to order the refund of the entire Court fee of Rs.2,54,326/- paid in the plaint in O.S.No.133 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

For Petitioners : Ms.M.Meenarukmani in CRP.No.4064 of 2026 : Mr.K.Sukumaran in CRP.No.4106 of 2026 : Mr.Suresh Sampath, Amicus Curiae

COMMON ORDER

A very interesting point falls for consideration in these two revision petitions. It is regarding the entitlement of a plaintiff to refund of Court fees paid on the plaint, after trial has commenced.

2.I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Ms.M.Meenarukmani in CRP No.4064 of 2026 and Mr. K.Sukumaran in CRP No.4106 of 2026.

3.The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are briefly summarized hereunder:

Relying on the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam and others, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 560, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court, holding that even in cases where parties negotiated an out of court settlement, the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of 100% court fees paid on the plaint, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.Sukumaran and Ms. M.Meenarukmani, took me through Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Court Fees Act” for the sake of brevity). Learned Counsel would also state that their respective cases clearly fell within the domain of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision and therefore, the Trial Court, in the case of CRP No. 4064 of 2026, ought not to have restricted the refund to 50% of the total court fee, leave alone erroneously further deducting 5%, which, according to the counsel for the revision petitioner, Ms. M.Meenarukmani, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The counsel further contended that Courts have consistently held that private settlements should not be given step motherly treatment and the benefits under Section 69-A should be extended to such private settlements.

4. In so far as the other revision, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

K.Sukumaran contended that the Trial Court clearly erred in disentitling the plaintiff to refund of court fee paid on the plaint, despite the parties recording a joint compromise memo dated 09.10.2025 and as a consequence, dismissing the suit itself.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M.Meenarukmani relied on the following decisions:

i. Bosco Prabu vs. P.S.Mithran and Others [C.S. No. 724 of 2019 and A.No.276 of 2020 dated 30.06.2021]

ii. Proud Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd vs. Urrshila Kerkar, reported in

2023 SCC OnLine Del 2270 iii. M.Sebastian Micle vs. V.Murugan and Another [A.S. (MD) No. 28 of

2014 dated 27.07.2023]

iv. Indian Overseas Bank vs. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt Ltd. [O.S.A.

Nos. 214 & 264 of 2020 dated 25.06.2024]

v. J.Indirani vs. G.Subba Reddy [O.S.A