( 1 ) A very interesting point has arisen for consideration viz whether court fee is payable on a compromise application under order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the compromise decree drawn up pursuant thereto whereunder a large amount happened to be paid to the defendant.

( 2 ) IN the present case a plaint containing the following prayer was registered as a suit:-

"in the facts and circumstances of the case it is respectfully prayed that the hon ble Court be pleased to pass a decree that the Defendant deliver to the plaintiff vacant possession of the portion, more fully described in yellow in the site plan annexure herewith, of property bearing municipal number A-54, kailash Colony, New Delhi of which portion the plaintiff has been dispossessed without consent and otherwise in due course of law. "

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that defendant had allegedly trespassed into the suit property on 20. 7. 1997, and had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff of two rooms in the suit property. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the cause of action again arose on 8-8. 1997 when the defendant upon release on bail in the Case fir No. 285/97, once again barged into the suit property bearing No. A-54, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and forcebly occupied two rooms by wrongfully dispossessing the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed a written statement wherein she claimed that she has a right to reside in the premises, and also disputing the contentions of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) IT is the admitted case that the plaint as instituted, was bearing proper court fee. Neither order of the Court, was there even a hint of deficiency of court fee.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the parties compromised the matter and a joint application under order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , being I. A. No. 2786/00 was filed, alongwith a deed of family settlement dated 28. 3. 2000, duly executed between various family members, many of whom were not even parties to the pending suit.

( 7 ) IN the body of the application under Order 23 rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , it was inter alia mentioned in para 4 therefore, that Rs. 1,25 crores is being paid to the defendant under the settlement so as to provide adequate provision for her and her children. Some part of the said amount was to be paid immediately, while post-dated cheques were to be issued for the balance amount by way of two cheques of Rs. 25 lacs each payable at gaps/interval of one year in between them.

( 8 ) BY order dated 31. 3. 2000 the suit was disposed of, and a decree was passed in terms of the said compromise between the parties.

( 9 ) AT the stage of preparation of the decree, the Registry of this Court has issued communication dated 3. 5. 2000 demanding the payment of ad-valorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 1. 25 crores, as a condition precedent to the preparation of the decree.

( 10 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present application (IA. No. 7972/00) disputing the said requirement of the registry of this Court, and praying for the said demand to be quashed.

( 11 ) SINCE this matter involved a large amount of revenue, it was considered appropriate to avail the assistance of counsel representing the High Court so as to substantiate the impugned communication issued by the Registry of this Court. Mr. Neeraj Kaul and mr. Viraj Datar Advocates appeared and ably assited on the various aspects of the matter.

( 12 ) MR. Aman Lekhi learned counsel for the plaintiff, very ably put forward his contentions as

(I) The plaint was for a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Act. Defendant who is the wife of the plaintiff s brother has forcibly occupied a portion. There was no objection regarding inadequacy of Court fee on the plaint; (ii) During the pendency of those proceedings a family settlement was arrived between various parties, including plaintiff and defendant, and covering other properties as also the rights of maintenanc