K S PERIYASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation is for issuing a writ of mandamus against the State of Karnataka to grant 100% court fee refund in the cases settled by adopting any of the modes provided in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the said Code'). The petitioner appearing in person, who is a member of the Bar, has invited our attention to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958') as amended by the Act No.9 of 2015. He pointed out that by virtue of the said amended provision of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act of 1958, in case of settlement of disputes by any one of the modes of settlement referred to in Section 89 of the said Code, only 75% of the amount of court fees is refundable.

(3.) The petitioner invited our attention to the fact that several other States have a provision for grant of 100% refund of the court fees in case of such settlement. He also invited our attention to the observations made in paragraph 63 of a well known decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu .v. Union Of India, 2005 6 SCC 344. He submitted that the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, 'the Central Court Fees Act') provides for 100% refund of the court fees paid on a suit which is settled by one of the four modes of settlement of dispute referred in sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the said Code. He submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has recommended to all the State Governments to make amendments to the local Court Fees Act for bringing the same in conformity with Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act.