P.Rajaseelan v. Canara Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR S.A.No.871 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18106 of 2019 P.Rajaseelan S/o.Prakasam ... Appellant Vs.
Canara Bank Yellanhalli Branch Rep. by its Principal Officer and Manager, The Nilgiris.
... Respondent Prayer:
Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2019 made in A.S.No.2/2015 on the file of District Judge and appellate authority of the Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2013 made in O.S.No.68/2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.
For Appellant :
Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent :
Mr.P.Raghunathan M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
J U D G M E N T
Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel on record for sole appellant and Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel of M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., (Law Firm) on behalf of lone respondent Bank are before this Virtual Court.
2. Adverting to earlier proceedings made in previous listing on 19.07.2021, aforementioned both learned counsel submit that the counsel for appellant has filed a memo for withdrawing the captioned matter and respondent/Bank has also given a letter
dated 21.07.2021 saying that the Bank does not stand in the way of withdrawal.
3. A scanned reproduction of an earlier counsel letter, the memo filed by the appellant (together with docket) and annexed letter from the Bank are as follows:
4. The contents of the aforementioned memo and letter are reiterated by respective counsel in the hearing today.
5. Learned counsel for appellant requests for refund of full Court fee under Section 69-A of 'The Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955' [hereinafter 'TN Court Fees Act' for brevity and convenience] as amended as the matter has been settled out of Court.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recently rendered judgment in the case of The High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C.Subramaniam & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 109 has held that settled out of Court as occurring in Section 69-A of TN Court Fees Act includes settlement out of Court de hors recourse to any of the modes adumbrated in Section 89 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. This is one such case. Therefore, in the light of Section 69-A of TN Court Fees Act read in the context of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.Subramaniam's case, the appellant is entitled to refund of full Court fee. Relevant paragraphs in M.C.Subramaniam's case are paragraphs 26 and 27 and the same read as follows: '26.
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.
27. 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.' (underlining made by this Court for ease of reference)
7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that he will comply with all requirements for refund of full Court fee paid subject to standard statutory deductions, if any. Registry to process the request for refund of Court fee and make refund to the appellant by way of an instrument drawn in favour of the appellant (P.Rajaseelan, S/o.Prakasam) as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Therefore, the captioned main Second Appeal and captioned CMP are dismissed as withdrawn albeit with the above directives for refund of full Court fee.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mk To 1.
The District Judge, Court of District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris Udhagamandalam.
2.
The Subordinate Judge, Court of Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris Uthagamandalam.
+1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, S.R.No.35740 +1cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, S.R.No.35413 S.A.No.871 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18106 of 2019 VSN-II(CO) HS(24/08/2021)