Madras High Court
M.Sebastian Micles vs V.Murugan (Died) on 27 July, 2023
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
A.S.(MD)No.28 of 2014
M.Sebastian Micles ...Appellant
/Vs./
1.V.Murugan (died)
2.Chandrika Devi ...Respondents
[R2 is brought on record as legal heir of the deceased
sole respondent vide order dated 01.04.2019]
PRAYER:- Appeal Suit- filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of
15 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree
dated 08.10.2013 made in O.S.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the District
Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For R2 : Mr.Vashik Ali
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R1 : Died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated
08.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2007 by the learned District Judge,
Kanyakumari.
2.When the matter is called today, Mr.Thiagarajan, learned
counsel on record for the appellant and Mr.Vashik Ali, learned
representing counsel on behalf of the learned counsel on record for the
respondent would, in one voice, state that the suit has been settled by the
parties out of Court.
3.Memo has been filed by Mr.Thiagarajan reiterating the
aforesaid narration, accompanied by an affidavit of the appellant to the
effect that the appellant and the respondent have compromised the matter
and the suit has been settled out of Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
4.In the light of the aforesaid, the appellant seeks refund of
Court fee in terms of Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act, 1955 (in short 'Act'). Section 69-A of the Act is generous
and provides for refund of Court fee even upon reference to the suit for
settlement. However, it stipulates the modes of settlement as those as
referred to under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short
'CPC'). In the interest of completion, both Section 69-A of the Act and
Section 89 of CPC are extracted below:
“Section 69-A of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act,
1955 :
.... 69A. Refund on settlement of disputes under section
89 of Code of Civil Procedure. - (1) Where the Court refers the
parties to the suit to anyone of the modes of settlement of dispute
referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Central Act V of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a
certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back the
full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint if the dispute
referred by the Court is settled.
Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
.89. Settlement of disputes outisde the Court.--(1)
Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a
settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the
parties for their observations and after receiving the
observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms
of a possible settlement and refer the same for:--
(a) arbitration;
(b) conciliation;
(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok
Adalat: or
(d) mediation.
(2) Were a dispute has been referred--
(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply
as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were
referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;
(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok
Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987)
and all other provisions of that Act shall .apply in respect of the
dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;
(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a
suitable institution or person and such institution or person
shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if
the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of
that Act;
(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between
the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be
prescribed.”
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras rep by its Registrar General vs. M.C.Subramaniam
and others [2021 0 Supreme (SC) 92] had had occasion to consider
whether such refund would be possible only in those circumstances as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
adumbrated under Section 89 or even otherwise. At para 19, they agree
with the ratio of the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in
Kamalamma and others vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce
Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., [(2010) 1 AIR Kar.R.279], Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Pradeep Sonawat vs. Satish Prakash [2015 (1)
RCR Civil 955] and Pritam Singh vs. Ashok Kumar, [2019 (1) Law
Herald (P&H) 721] and the Delhi High Court in J.K.Forigns vs. Essar
Construction India Ltd., & others [(2009) 113 DRJ 612]. Paragraphs 19
to 21 may be usefully extracted as under:
“19. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken
by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose
of Section 69-A is to reward parties who have chosen to
withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory
dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and
resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of
the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee,
though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute
between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic
incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative
methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High Court
has rightly observed in Kamalamma (supra), parties who have
agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial
intervention under Section 89, CPC are even more deserving
of this benefit. This is because by choosing to resolve their
claims themselves, they have saved the State of the logistical
hassle of arranging for a third party institution to settle the
dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are certainly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find that the
importance of private amicable negotiation between the
parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no
justifiable reason why Section 69-A should only incentivize the
methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC
and afford step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed
of by the parties.
Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have
after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple frivolous
litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of court fees
in the guise of having settled their disputes. In such cases, the
Court may, having regard to the previous conduct of the
parties and the principles of equity, refuse to grant relief
under the relevant rules pertaining to court fees. However, we
do not find the present case as being of such nature.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of
out-0fcourt 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.The Apex Court considered the object of Section 69-A of the
Act, being to reward the parties who have chosen to withdraw the dispute
under salutary dispute resolution mechanisms. Section 69-A must be
considered and interpreted in line with its avowed objects and in an
expansive manner. Thus, though the provision encompass only those
modes of settlement referred to under Section 89 of the CPC, it would
not be appropriate to exclude settlements by private negotiation and the
benefit under Section 69 must be extended to such settlements as well.
7.A note of caution has been sound in respect of those cases
where the settlement is not bonafide but as a result of exhaustion caused
by multiple frivolous litigation or other factors. Thus, the conduct of the
parties who have entered into a settlement must indicate that such
settlement is bonafide and in such cases, the benefit under Section 69-A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
be extended in the interests of saving expense and opportunity cost.
8.In the present case, we see no hurdle in granting the request
of the appellant for refund of Court fee. Let a request for refund be made
in this regard to the Registrar General of this Court. Refund to be
granted within a week from the date of receipt of the request.
9.The appeal suit is closed as settled out of Court with the
directions as above. No costs.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
27.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
To
1.The District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.28 of 2014
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.28 of 2014
Dated:
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
