Writ Petition No. 43644 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3273 WP No. 43644 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 43644 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: …PETITIONER B.R. KHALEEL AHAMMED, S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HALAGUNDA VILLAGE, KONDANGERI POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252.
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in W.P. No. 33768/2009 in the case of Sri. R Prakash and Sri. D.M. Ravikumar and another dated 03.02.2010, wherein this Court had allowed the Writ Petition and directed the trial Court to refund the full Court fee, where, in that case the Court had refunded only the half of the Court fee. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel submits that even in this case also, plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the amount which is not considered by the trial Court. 4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The suit is filed for defamation in the year 2014 and the petitioner wants to withdraw the suit in the year 2019 and hence, came up with a memo to dismiss it as not pressed and for the refund of the amount. Refund of the Court Fee, Section 63 Chapter VII of the Act deals with Refunds and Remissions. The plaintiff is relying - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3273 WP No. 43644 of 2019 on Section 66 of the Act which is refund on settlement before hearing, where his thrust is upon 66(a) of the Act, which reads as under: "66(a) - any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of claim". Just because evidence is not let in and the plaintiff wants to withdraw the case, at any stretch of imagination, his case would not fall under Chapter VII - Refunds and Remissions and in particular, Section 66 of the KCF & SV Act. A case which is settled out of the Court and any compromise that is ended cannot be equated with withdrawal of the case and the purpose and purport in incorporating this Section is altogether different. The judgement that is relied on by the petitioner in Sri. R Prakash's case referred to supra, is a case where the suit was withdrawn as settled out of the Court and the said suit was dismissed. The facts of the said case do not apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3273 WP No. 43644 of 2019
Arguments
(BY SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SMT. ZAREENA BANU, D/O Y. SIRAJ, AGED MAJOR, R/AT BEHIND SARASWATHI STORES, FMC ROAD, VIRAJAPET KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2020 AGA FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3273 WP No. 43644 of 2019 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, VIRAJPET IN O.S.NO.219/2014 AS PER ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS REFUSING THE REFUND OF THE COURT FEE TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2019 on the memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff dated 07.03.2019 in O.S.No.219/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Virajpet, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No. 219/2014 against the respondent seeking for defamation. Thereafter, he wanted to withdraw the suit and he came up with a memo stating that the plaintiff is not interested to continue the suit. Hence, he has filed the memo "not pressed" and the suit may be dismissed and to refund the entire court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3273 WP No. 43644 of 2019 fees in the suit. That came to be dismissed by the trial Court by the order impugned, wherein the trial Court observed that in the memo, it is not stated that the dispute is settled between the plaintiff and the defendant either by invoking section 89 of CPC or by way of settlement outside the Court. Chapter VII consisting of Sections 63 to 69 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCF & SV Act' for short), deals with Refunds and Remissions of Court Fee. The contents of memo filed by the plaintiff does not fall under the any of the circumstances narrated in Chapter VII of the KCF & SV Act, so as to Order for refund of Court Fee and accordingly the trial Court has partly allowed the memo and dismissed the suit as not pressed. But, however held that the plaintiff is not entitled for refund of Court fee. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 66 of the KCF & SV Act and he submits that as per Section 66(a) of the Act if any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of claim, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the Court fee. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case also, no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3273 WP No. 43644 of 2019 evidence is recorded and he has withdrawn the suit. As such, his case falls under Section 66(a) of the Act and the Court ought to have refunded the Court fee. He relied on an order
Decision
ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK