PEIRCE LESLIE INDIA LTD. Vs. KUNHEERIUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of certain amount under a promissory note executed by the Defendant. The case stood posted to 17th September 1976. The Defendant was absent on that date and was declared ex parte. The suit was adjourned to 23rd September 1976. On 23rd September 1976, the Advocate for the Plaintiff filed a statement which is as follows:

(2.) Section 69 of the Court Fees Act reads:

(3.) It is no doubt true that the words in a statute have to be interpreted in the setting where they are used and take colour from the context in which they appear. Even so, Section 69 does not admit an interpretation entitling the Plaintiff to a refund of the court fee in the circumstances mentioned in the case. The Section contemplates refund of court fee when the suit is decided (1) on a compromise or (2) on admission of parties without an investigation. There is no claim based on a compromise. The argument is that the use of the word 'parties' in the Section implies that the admission contemplated in the Section need not be confined to an admission by the Defendant but would include an admission by the Plaintiff. There is no doubt about this. When there is a counter-claim by the Defendant in the same suit and there is an admission by the Plaintiff, the Defendant who paid court fee on the counter-claim is entitled to a refund thereof for which purpose the written statement filed by him will be treated as a plaint. The use of the word 'parties' is also attributable to the fact that the Section mentions both plaint and memorandum of appeal. There may also be cases where there are more than one Plaintiff or Appellant. Hence no assistance is available from the word 'parties' for deciding whether the Petitioner is entitled to refund.