ARAVINDAKSHA PRABHU Vs. SHAMSUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R . Basant, J. - These revision petitions are filed by the common revision petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 25th February 1999 in I.A. 407 of 1999 in O.S. 787 of 1997 and I.A. 406 of 1999 in O.S. 789 of 1997.

(2.) THOSE suits were filed by the revision petitioner against the respondents for specific performance of two agreements for sale and in the alternative for return of the amount paid as advance. During the pendency of the suits the matter was settled between the parties and the settlement was reported to the Court. The plaintiff, in view of the settlement, did not want to further prosecute the suits. It was in these circumstances that the plaintiff reported settlement to the Court and did not choose to prosecute the suits.

(3.) IT is in these circumstances that the revision petitioner filed I.A. Nos. 406 and 407 of 1999 in the two suits for a direction to refund half the court fee under Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and for amendment of the Decree. The applications were not opposed. The fact that there was settlement of the disputes involved in both suits was not disputed. But the learned Munsiff by the impugned orders proceeded to dismiss the applications. According to the learned Munsiff a mere statement/endorsement that the matter is settled and that the suit is not pressed is insufficient to persuade the Court to invoke its powers under Section 69 of the Act and to direct refund of half the court fee.