M/S Bhosale Bio Neem Products vs The Civil Judge And Jmfc, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9820 Kant

                              1          W.P.No.200607/2022


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       WRIT PETITION NO.200607/2022 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

M/s Bhosale Bio Neem Products,
Represented by its Partner,
Rajendra Bhosale,
Age: 59 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Muddebihal.
                                                  ... Petitioner
(By Sri Sanket Appaji, Advocate)


AND:

The Managing Director/
Finance Manager, ITC Ltd.,
ILTD Division, Muddebihal,
Dist. Vijayapura.
                                                ... Respondent

(By Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, HCGP)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue writ of mandamus
directing to refund the full Court Fee of `19,400/- to the
petitioner in O.S.No.329/2012 on the file of the Court of Civil
Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal and etc.
                                 2     W.P.No.200607/2022


      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                      ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as the learned High Court Government Pleader who was

directed to assist the Court.

2. The petitioner herein who was the plaintiff in

OS No.329/2012 has approached this Court invoking its

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

with a prayer to direct the Trial Court to refund the

Court fee paid by him in O.S.No.329/2012.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the

records that would be necessary for the purpose of

disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner

herein had filed a suit in OS No.329/2012 before the

Court of Civil Judge at Muddebihal (hereinafter referred

to as the 'Trial Court') for recovery of a sum of

`2,84,749=25 with interest at the rate of 24%. In the

said suit, he had paid Court fee of `19,400/-. The

defendant in the said suit had entered appearance and

filed his written statement and at the stage of final

arguments, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on

the ground that the dispute between the parties was

settled out of the Court. Thereafterwards, an application

was filed seeking refund of the Court fee paid by him.

The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide

its order dated 18.10.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the

application filed by him seeking refund of the Court fee.

He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of the High Court of Judicature

at Madras represented by its Registrar General vs.

M.C.Subramaniam and others, in SLP(Civil) No.3063-

3064 of 2021 which was disposed of on 17.02.2021, in

support of his case.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader

who was directed to assist the Court after going through

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been

referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting

the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the Court fee.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

M.C.Subramaniam's case (supra) at para 16 has

observed as follows :-

"16. It is pertinent to note that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgement has been affirmed by the High Courts in other states as well. Reference may be had to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kamalamma & ors. v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., (2010) 1 AIR Kar. R 279, wherein it was held as follows:

"6. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or any other proceeding get their dispute settled

amicably through Arbitration, or meditation or conciliation in the Lok Adalath, by invoking provisions of Section 89, C.P.C. or they get the same settled between themselves without the intervention of any Arbitrator/ Mediator/ Conciliators in Lokadalath etc., and without invoking the provision of Section 89, C.P.C., the fact remains that they get their dispute settled without the intervention of the Court. If they get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89, C.P.C., in that event the State may have to incur some expenditure but, if they get their dispute settled between themselves without the intervention of the Court or anyone else, such as arbitrator/mediator etc., the State would not be incurring any expenditure. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that whether the parties to a litigation get their dispute settled by invoking Section 89, C.P.C. or they get the same settled between themselves without invoking Section 89, C.P.C., the party paying Court Fees in respect thereof should be entitled to the refund of full Court Fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870."

(emphasis supplied)

Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is in parimateria with Section 69-A of the 1955 Act, and hence the above stated principles are equally applicable to the present case."

7. The judgment of this Court in the case of

Kamalamma was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid case and in para 20 of the

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as

follows :-

"20. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89, CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the Petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the Respondent No.1's claim."

8. The Trial Court has failed to properly

appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid judgment relied by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the

Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's

prayer for refund of the Court fee. Accordingly, the

following :

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the Court of

Civil Judge at Muddebihal on the application filed by the

petitioner for refund of the Court fee is quashed and the

Trial Court is directed to refund the Court fee of

`19,400/- paid by the petitioner before the said Court in

O.S.No.329/2012.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn