PHILOMINA JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Judge of this Court referred the following question of law to be decided by a Division Bench:

(2.) We may extract below Section 69 of the Kerala Courts Fees and Suit Valuation Act, (for short, "the Act") which governs the field.

(3.) In Peirce Leslie India Ltd.'s case (supra), the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of certain amount under a promissory note executed by the defendant. The case stood posted to 17.9.1976 The defendant was absent on that date and was declared ex parte. The suit was adjourned to 23.9.1976. On 23.9.1976, the Advocate for the plaintiff filed a statement stating that the suit has been settled out of court and therefore the suit may be dismissed as settled on plaintiff's admission without taking any evidence and that half court fee may be refunded under Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees Act. Following the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff moved for refund of half of court fee which was rejected by the lower court. The plaintiff filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court. The learned Judge was of the opinion that only when the suit is decreed on the admission of the plaint claim by the defendant or admission by the plaintiff of the claim in the counter claim of the defendant, it can be stated that the suit was disposed of on the basis of the admission of parties and occasion to refund the court fees arises under Section 69 of the Act. Learned Judge has also referred to Order XII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before it was amended in 1976, and held that, admission should be understood in the same sense as it is used in Civil Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Evidence Act and when the suit is not decreed on the admission on the defendant, the court fee cannot be refunded under Section 69 of the Act.