Sri E Krishnaiah vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9603 Kant

                          1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

   WRIT PETITION NO. 11502 OF 2022(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI E KRISHNAIAH
S/O LATE E ANJIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.29, 2ND CROSS,
1ST MAIN, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
MUNESHWARANAGARA KATTIGENAHALLI
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560063
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S OFFICE BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. SMT UTTANALLAMMA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
                           2


3. SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

4. SMT MANJULA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

5. SMT SHILPA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

6. SMT KARTHIK
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

7. SRI KEMPANNA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

8. SMT KRISHNAMMA
W/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

9. SRI RAGHU
S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

10. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

11. MASTER MADHAN
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

12. BABY KIRTHANA
D/O NAGARAJ
                           3


AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SRI NAGARAJ RESPONDENT NO.9

13. SRI BYREGOWDA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

14. BABY MONIKA
D/O BYREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

15. BABY ASHA
D/O BYREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SRI BYREGOWDA RESPONDENT NO.13

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 15 ARE
R/AT KADAYARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE
B K HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-562149

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANITHA.H.R, HCGP FOR R1)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 09.08.2021 IN O.S.NO.510/2020
VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ON THE MEMO
FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 07.10.2020 FOR REFUND
OF COURT FEE.
                                  4


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning

the order dated 9.8.2021 declining to refund the Court

fee on the ground that the suit is withdrawn

incorporating settlement out of Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner. Notice to contesting respondents is

dispensed with as the controversy between the parties

is in regard to entitlement of refund of Court fee.

3. Perused the impugned order. The learned

Judge has declined to refund the Court fee on the

premise that the matter is settled out of Court. The

order under challenge runs contrary to the dictum laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of High Court of

Judicature at Madras, Represented by its

Registrar General.vs. M.C. Subramaniam and

others1 wherein at Paragraph 26, it is held as under:

"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 braod 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 of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant i.e, Respondent 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee."

4. In the light of what is held by the Apex

Court in the judgment cited supra, the order is not at

all sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

(2021) 3 SCC 560

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The trial Court is

directed to refund the Court fee in the light of the

guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the

judgment cited supra.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-