Madras High Court
P.Rajaseelan vs Canara Bank on 26 July, 2021
S.A.No.871 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
S.A.No.871 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.18106 of 2019
P.Rajaseelan
S/o.Prakasam ... Appellant
Vs.
Canara Bank
Yellanhalli Branch
Rep. by its Principal Officer
and Manager,
The Nilgiris. ... Respondent
Prayer:
Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
14.03.2019 made in A.S.No.2/2015 on the file of District Judge and appellate
authority of the Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam confirming the judgment and
decree dated 18.07.2013 made in O.S.No.68/2009 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondent : Mr.P.Raghunathan
M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
*****
JUDGMENT
Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel on record for sole appellant and
Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel of M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., (Law Firm)
on behalf of lone respondent Bank are before this Virtual Court.
2. Adverting to earlier proceedings made in previous listing on
19.07.2021, aforementioned both learned counsel submit that the counsel for
appellant has filed a memo for withdrawing the captioned matter and
respondent/Bank has also given a letter dated 21.07.2021 saying that the
Bank does not stand in the way of withdrawal.
3. A scanned reproduction of an earlier counsel letter, the memo filed
by the appellant (together with docket) and annexed letter from the Bank are
as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
4. The contents of the aforementioned memo and letter are reiterated
by respective counsel in the hearing today.
5. Learned counsel for appellant requests for refund of full Court fee
under Section 69-A of 'The Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1955' [hereinafter 'TN Court Fees Act' for brevity and convenience] as
amended as the matter has been settled out of Court.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recently rendered judgment in the case
of The High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C.Subramaniam & Ors.
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 109 has held that settled out of Court as
occurring in Section 69-A of TN Court Fees Act includes settlement out of
Court de hors recourse to any of the modes adumbrated in Section 89 of 'The
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of convenience
and brevity]. This is one such case. Therefore, in the light of Section 69-A of
TN Court Fees Act read in the context of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M.C.Subramaniam's case, the appellant is entitled to refund of full
Court fee. Relevant paragraphs in M.C.Subramaniam's case are paragraphs
26 and 27 and the same read as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
'26. 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.
27. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in
holding that Section 89 of the 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 of 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.,
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
Respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court
fee.'
(underlining made by this Court
for ease of reference)
7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that he will comply with all
requirements for refund of full Court fee paid subject to standard statutory
deductions, if any. Registry to process the request for refund of Court fee and
make refund to the appellant by way of an instrument drawn in favour of the
appellant (P.Rajaseelan, S/o.Prakasam) as expeditiously as possible and in
any event, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Therefore, the captioned main Second Appeal and captioned CMP
are dismissed as withdrawn albeit with the above directives for refund of full
Court fee. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
26.07.2021
Speaking order: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mk
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.871 of 2019
M.SUNDAR.J.,
mk
To
1. The District Judge,
Court of District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris
Udhagamandalam.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Court of Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris
Uthagamandalam.
S.A.No.871 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.18106 of 2019
26.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
