S.L. BHAYANA, J.

1. By this order, I propose to dispose of IA No. 9711/09 filed by plaintiff thereby seeking refund of court fees.

2. By virtue of this application filed under Section 16 of Court Fee Act 1870, plaintiff/applicant is thereby praying for refund of court fees which was paid by the applicant with the plaint.

3. Instant suit was a suit for recovery of money against the defendants registered as CS (OS) 156/2009,vide order dated 27/5/09 this suit was decreed on joint application moved by both the parties being IA No.7283/09 under Order XXIII Rule 2 CPC filed by the parties on the basis of which the suit stands disposed of.

4. On the other hand the registry of this court vide reference dated 16/9/2009 has raised objection regarding the refund of court fees on the ground that court fees can be returnable only in the manner provided under Section 16 of Court Fees Act, which provides that court must refer the parties to the suit to any one of the modes of settlement of disputes referred to Section 89 of CPC but in this case parties have not settled their dispute through any of the modes prescribed under Sec 89 of CPC so the court fees cannot be refunded to them.

5. The question of law involved in this application is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of court fees or not?

6. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and also gone through the reference dated 3/8/2009 put up by the Registry.

7. It would be apposite to extract some of the relevant provisions which throw some light on this issue:

XI Analogous Provisions Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as inserted by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, No. 46 of 1999 Settlement of disputes outside the Court. (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observation of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for— (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or (d) mediation. (2) Where a dispute has been referred-- (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration of conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act; (b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute referred to the Lok Adalat; (c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. Order X, Rules 1A to 1C as inserted by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 1A. Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution .— After recording the admissions and denials, the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 89. On the option of the parties, the court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties. 1B. Appearance before the conciliation forum, or authority.— Where a suit is referred under rule 1A, the parties shall appear before such forum or authority for conciliation of the suit. 1C. Appearance before the Court consequent to the failure of efforts of conciliation.— Where a suit is ref