Allowed

Sri.Vijayakumar Panicker v. M/S.Maricker Estates and Projects

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016OP(C)/2176/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petition filed to direct the lower court to refund 1/10th of the court fee paid on the plaint. The relief was granted under Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act as the suit was settled via mediation under Section 89 of the CPC without the lower court issuing the required refund order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the court below to refund 1/10th of the court fee paid along with the plaint to the petitioners.

Sri.Vijayakumar Panicker Vs M/S.Maricker… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2176 of 2013 (O)

¶6

OS 142/2012 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 17-11-2012

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR PANICKER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE PRABHAKRA PANICKER, EMPLOYED AS SENIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, HAVING RESIDENCE AT 'M-36', 'MATHOOR', CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 033, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.GOPAKUMAR PANICKER, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE PRABHAKARA PANICKER.

¶9

2. SMT.LEENA VIJAYAKUMAR,

¶10

W/O.SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR PANICKER, RESIDENCE AT 'M-36', 'MATHOOR', CHENGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 033.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.V.VINAY MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. M/S.MARICKER ESTATES AND PROJECTS, A UNIT OF MARKCKAR PLANTATIONS LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE AT 41/3611, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.F.M.SHAMIER MARICKER.

¶14

2. SRI.F.M.SHAMIER MARICKER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.MARICKAR ESTATES AND PROJECTS, A UNIT OF MARIKCKAR PLANTATIONS LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE AT 41/3611, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

OP(C).No. 2176 of 2013 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 142 OF 2012 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.142 OF 2012 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2012 IN O.S.142 OF 2012 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 17.11.2012 IN O.S.142 OF 2012 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

NIL. / TRUE COPY /

¶23

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

¶25

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

O.P. (C) No.2176 of 2013

¶27

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the court below to the extent not ordering refund of court fee as the matter was settled in the mediation under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners filed a suit for realisation of the amount from the respondents as O.S.142/2012 on the file of the 3^rd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam and during the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the matter was settled in the mediation, and on the basis of the mediation agreement, the suit has been decreed evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. Though the matter was settled in the mediation, there was no order as to return of court fee paid as required under Section 69 A of Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Hence this petition.

¶31

Heard Sri.Vinay Menon, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Krishnaprasad, counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The only grievance of the petitioner was that, though the matter was settled in the mediation, the court below has not ordered

¶33

O.P. (C) No.2176 of 2013

¶34

¶35

return of 1/10^th court fee paid.

¶36

The counsel for the respondent has no objection for the same.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiff as O.S.142/2012 on the file of the 3^rd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam and the respondent filed written statement, but before the issues were framed, the case was referred to mediation under section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the matter was settled in the mediation and the suit was decreed on the basis of the settlement arrived at in the mediation evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. But there was no order as to refund the court fees has been made in the judgment.

¶38

Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act reads as follows:

¶39

69A . Refund of court fee in case where the dispute is settled under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure : Where a suit, appeal or other proceedings before any court is settled by recourse to section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), the whole court fee paid on the plaint/memorandum of appeal or other proceedings, except interlocutory matters, shall be ordered by the court to be refunded to the parties concerned by whom the court fee is paid.

¶40

So by virtue of the above section, there is a duty cast on

¶41

O.P. (C) No.2176 of 2013

¶42

¶43

the court to order refund of full court fee which was paid by the parties, if the matter was settled and the decree was passed on the basis of one of the methods provided under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been intended for the purpose of promoting alternate dispute resolution mechanism and motivate the parties to resort to alternate dispute resolution mechanism to reduce pendency of cases in court and also to get speedy justice. So that beneficial provision ought to have been exercised by the court below in favour of the petitioner which has not been done in this case.

¶44

So the petition is allowed and 1/10^th court fee paid along with the plaint is directed to be refunded to the petitioners. The court below is directed to issue necessary orders in this regard. Since the petitioner is not pressing for the relief regarding interest as the matter has been settled between the parties now and the entire amount has been paid, that relief is dismissed as not pressed.

¶45

With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed

¶46

of.

¶47

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

P.A. to Judge

¶50