C. EASWARAMOORTHY Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of half the Court -fees on the suit having been dismissed as settled out of Court but in which there was originally an ex parte decree which was later set side. There is no direct authority on the point. Section 69 of the Court -fees Act (XIV of 1955) says that:

(2.) THERE is authority for the proposition raised by the learned Counsel that the evidence recorded while passing an ex parte decree, which was ultimately set aside, is not evidence at all. Therefore, the fact that the Court did record evidence at the ex parte stage, does not debar the plaintiff from getting a refund of half the Court -fees under Section 69 of the Act. In Solamalai Mudaliar v. Vadamalai Muthiran : (1912)23MLJ273 . a promissory note was proved while recording ex parte evidence. Subsequently, the ex parte decree was set aside and the matter went for trial. The defendant objected to the admissibility of the promissory note as not properly stamped. The plaintiff invoked Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act. The question arose as to whether the plaintiff could so invoke Section 36of the Stamp Act on the strength of the fact that the promissory note has already been admitted in evidence at the ex parte stage. This Court held at page 275 that: