High Court of Karnataka Allows Refund of 75% Court Fee on Unconditional Withdrawal of Appeal Before Commencement of Hearing Under Section 66(2)(c) of Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Appellant Entitled to Refund as Withdrawal Was Unconditional and Before Hearing Commenced.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sri Jagadeeshaiah, filed Regular First Appeal No.1475/2014 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 in O.S.No.57/2012 passed by the Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapattana, which partly decreed the suit for specific performance of contract. The appeal came up for orders before a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The appellant, through his counsel Sri Harish H.V., sought unconditional withdrawal of the appeal before the commencement of hearing. The respondents were represented by Sri J.D.Kashinath for respondent No.2, and respondent No.1 was served. The sole legal issue was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of 75% of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal under Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, as amended by Karnataka Act No.09 of 2015. The court, per H.G.Ramesh J., held that the appellant was entitled to such refund, as the withdrawal was unconditional and before the commencement of hearing. The court directed the Registry to refund 75% of the court fee to the appellant within four weeks. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

Headnote

A) Court Fees - Refund of Court Fee - Section 66(2)(c) Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Unconditional Withdrawal of Appeal - The appellant filed an appeal and sought to withdraw it unconditionally before the commencement of hearing. The court held that under Section 66(2)(c) as amended, the appellant is entitled to a refund of 75% of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The court directed the refund to be made within four weeks. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether, under Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 as amended by Karnataka Act No.09 of 2015, the appellant is entitled for refund of 75% of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in view of unconditional withdrawal of the appeal before commencement of hearing.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant is entitled to refund of 75% of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The Registry is directed to refund 75% of the court fee to the appellant within four weeks.

Law Points

  • Refund of court fee
  • unconditional withdrawal of appeal
  • Section 66(2)(c) Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act
  • 1958
  • amendment by Karnataka Act No.09 of 2015
  • commencement of hearing
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (KAR) (06) 12

Regular First Appeal No.1475/2014

2018-06-06

H.G.Ramesh, Mohammad Nawaz

Sri Harish H.V. for appellant, Sri J.D.Kashinath for respondent 2

Sri Jagadeeshaiah

B. Prasannaiah and Smt. B. Vijaya Reddy

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Regular First Appeal against judgment and decree partly decreeing suit for specific performance of contract.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 in O.S.No.57/2012.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the trial court's decree partly decreeing the suit for specific performance.

Previous Decisions

Trial court partly decreed the suit for specific performance on 09.09.2014.

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of 75% of court fee on unconditional withdrawal of appeal before commencement of hearing under Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 as amended.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant sought unconditional withdrawal of the appeal before commencement of hearing. No arguments from respondents as the appeal was withdrawn.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 as amended by Karnataka Act No.09 of 2015, a party who unconditionally withdraws an appeal before the commencement of hearing is entitled to a refund of 75% of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.

Judgment Excerpts

The question of law that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether, under Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 as amended by Karnataka Act No.09 of 2015, the appellant is entitled for refund of 75% of the Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in view of unconditional withdrawal of the appeal before commencement of hearing. In view of the above, the appellant is entitled for refund of 75% of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Registry is directed to refund 75% of the court fee to the appellant within four weeks.

Procedural History

The appellant filed Regular First Appeal No.1475/2014 under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 in O.S.No.57/2012 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapattana. The appeal came up for orders before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 06.06.2018, when the appellant sought unconditional withdrawal before commencement of hearing.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958: 66(2)(c)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition of Ad-hoc Employee Seeking Regularisation — Appointment Not Through Proper Selection Process. Petitioner Appointed on Ad-hoc Basis as Showroom Assistant in 1997 Cannot Claim Regularisation as a Matter of R...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Rejection of Temporary Injunction in Regular Appeal — Section 104(2) CPC Does Not Bar Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC Against Order Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Passed in a Regular Appeal.