Madras High Court
K.K.Srinivasan vs C.Sarojammal on 17 June, 2022
A.S.Nos.252 &482 of 2020 and 6 & 175 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 17.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
A.S.No.550 of 2019
and C.M.P.Nos.16521 of 2019
& 5962 of 2022
K.K.Srinivasan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Sarojammal
2.C.Rajagopal ... Respondents
(represented by Power of Attorney Agent G.Dinesh Kumar)
Appeal filed under Section XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure
against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.113
of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravi
For Respondent : Mrs.R.S.Lakshmipriya
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.252 &482 of 2020 and 6 & 175 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
When the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Ravi, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mrs.R.S.Lakshmipriya, learned counsel
who had filed vakalat for the respondents today, submitted that the
parties had settled the matter out of Court.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant filed the memorandum of
compromise dated 30.05.2022, which is signed by the appellant, the
Power Agent of the respondents, the learned counsels for the appellant
and the respondents.
3.The learned counsel on either side submitted that in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties, the appeal may be
dismissed as settled out of Court.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the
Registry may be directed to refund the entire Court fee paid by the
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.252 &482 of 2020 and 6 & 175 of 2021
appellant for the reason that the parties had settled the matter out of
Court.
5.In view of the judgment reported in 2021(3) SCC 560 [High
Court of Judicature at Madras, Represented by its Registrar
General Vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others], the appellant is entitled
to get refund of the entire court fee paid in the First Appeal. The Hon'ble
Supreme court, in the above referred judgment has held as follows:-
“........ 20. Thus, even though a strict
construction of the terms of Section 89, CPC and 69A
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
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.252 &482 of 2020 and 6 & 175 of 2021
their own interest to allow the Respondent No. 1’s
claim.
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 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., Respondent No. 1 herein would be
entitled to refund of court fee. ..........”
6.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
on either side and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2021(3) SCC 560 (cited
supra), the appellant is entitled to get refund of the entire Court fee. The
memorandum of compromise dated 30.05.2022 is taken on record and
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.252 &482 of 2020 and 6 & 175 of 2021
shall form part of the decree to be passed in the above appeal. In view of
the compromise entered into between the parties, the appeal is dismissed
as settled out of Court. The Registry is directed to refund the Court fee
paid by the appellant. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [S.M., J.]
va 17.06.2022
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.Nos.252 &482 of 2020 and 6 & 175 of 2021
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
va
A.S.No.550 of 2019
and C.M.P.Nos.16521 of 2019
& 5962 of 2022
17.06.2022
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
