Madras High Court
T.Baby Ammal vs R.Jeyamurali on 28 February, 2022
A.S.(MD)Nos.25 & 26 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
A.S.(MD)No.25 & 26 of 2016 and
CMP(MD) No.1613 of 2016
A.S.(MD)No.25 of 2016 :
1.T.Baby Ammal,
2.M.Thangam Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
R.Jeyamurali Respondent/Plaintiff
A.S.(MD)No.26 of 2016 :
1.M.Thangam
2.T.Babi Ammal Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
R.Jeyamurali Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER in A.S.(MD)No.25 of 2016: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.134 of 2012, dated 20.08.2014 by the learned I Additional District
Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and dismiss the above suit filed by the respondent
herein by allowing this appeal suit.
PRAYER in A.S.(MD)No.26 of 2016: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)Nos.25 & 26 of 2016
O.S.No.156 of 2013, dated 20.08.2014 by the learned I Additional District
Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and decree the above suit filed by the appellants
by allowing this appeal suit.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Subramanian
(In both Appeal Suits)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Appeal Suits are filed as against the judgment and decree passed by the
learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, in O.S.No.134 of
2012 and O.S.No.156 of 2013, dated 20.08.2014.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants filed a memo stating that the
matter has been settled out of Court. He also requests for refund of Court fee as
well.
3. In pursuance of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants,
which is signed by both the parties, I feel that these Appeal Suits can be
allowed to be withdrawn. With regard to refund of Court fee, the learned
counsel cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in 2021
3 SCC Page 560, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Rep by its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)Nos.25 & 26 of 2016
Registrar General Vs. M.C.Subramaniam & others, wherein, it was held as
follows:-
21.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
hod 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, Respondent No.1
herein would be entitled to refund of court fee.
4.In view of the same, the appellants are entitled for refund of the court fee as
well.
5.In the result, these Appeal Suits are dismissed as withdrawn and the court fee
is also ordered to be refunded. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)Nos.25 & 26 of 2016
vrn
To
1.The I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.(MD)Nos.25 & 26 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
vrn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
A.S.(MD)No.25 & 26 of 2016 and
CMP(MD) No.1613 of 2016
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
