POLYPRINT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants, who had filed this appeal against the preliminary decree in a mortgage suit, having satisfied with the decree and a compromise entered into between the parties appellants and the plaintiffbank , seek permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. In view of the facts stated with regard to the discharge of loan amount pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. However, we make no order as to costs.

(2.) At this stage Mr.Y. Sivarama Sastry, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that inasmuch as the appeal is being withdrawn pursuant to the compromise, the Court fees payable by the plaintiff in institution of the suit was also remitted and that the suit debt having been discharged to the extent of their liability pursuant to the compromise, equity warrants the refund of theCourt Fee paid in this appeal. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in M. Dasarath vs. K. Omprakash wherein the Division Bench, dealing with the similar question, applying the equitable principles directed the refund of Court Fees, following earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s. P&H Vaswani (P) Ltd., vs. G.S. Murthy.

(3.) Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants, we also apply the principles incidental to the facts of the case as the request for refund of Court Fee falls outside the provisions of Sections 63 to 66 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. There is the power inherent in this law Court as a Court of Record, which is not only a Court of law but also a Court of justice and equity to see and weigh in each case as to whether the Court fee is liable to be refunded or not. Such inherent power has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and only in the cases where there is equity in favour of the appellant withdrawing the appeal. In the instant case, having regard to the facts and dircumstances, we find the equity in favour of the appellants and as such the Court See paid in this appeal shall be refunded to the appellants by the Registry We may also make it clear that the refund of this Court Fees will not be deprived of the fees payable to the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff Bank The plaintiff-Bank has to pay his fees in accordance with their understanding and in accordance with the provision of the A.P. Advocates' Fee Rules, 1990.