J.B. KOSHY, J.

Doubting the correctness of the interpretation given by a Single Judge of this Court in State Bank of India v. Igbal Zacharia 1994 (1) KLT 141) regarding the scope and effect of Section 4A of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as The Act'). this revision petition was referred to the Division Bench, Before going into the merits of the case we may look into Section 4A of the Act, which reads as follows:

"4A. Levy of fee at the time of institution of suit:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the amount of fee to be paid on plaint at the time of institution of suit shall be one-tenth of the amount of fee chargeable under this Act and the balance amount shall be paid within such period, not later than fifteen days from the date of framing of issues or where framing of issues is not necessary, within such period not exceeding fifteen days as may be specified by the court:

Provided that the court may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing extent the period upto thirty days.

Provided further that if the parties settle the dispute within the period specified or extended by the court for the payment of the balance amount, the plaintiff shall not be called upon to pay such balance."

Section 4A was inserted by the Amendment Act 6 of 1991.

2. Section 4A allowed the plaintiff to institute a suit on payment of one-tenth of the court fee and to pay balance within fifteen days of framing of issues or within the time allowed by the court. If the matter is settled by the parties within the time allowed to pay the balance court fee, no further court fee need be paid. In other words, if there is settlement between the parties before the time fixed for payment of balance court fee, the Legislature thought it fit that the parties be relieved from the obligation to pay balance court fee leviable on the plaint as the court need not adjudicate the issue further. Another Section granting the relief in the matter of Court fee is Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows:

69.Refund in cases of compromise or when suit is decided on the admission of parties:-

When a suit or appeal is compromised or when a suit is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation, one - half of the Court fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been paid respectively.

Provided that no refund shall be ordered where only one-tenth of the amount of fee on plaint as required by section 4A or one - third of the amount of fee on memorandum of appeal as required by section 52 has been paid by the parties."

3. There are three major differences between Section 4A and Section 69.

(1) Section 69 speaks of refund and not exemption from payment of balance court fee.

(2) Under section 4A matter should be settled or compromised before the date fixed for payment of court fee or within such extended date as fixed by the court. Under Section 69, compromise can be after the date fixed for payment of balance court fee but before the adjudication. If balance court fee is not paid within the time allowed by the Court, suit will be dismissed. Therefore, application of Section 69 is always after the payment of full court fee. That is why provision makes it clear that if only one-tenth of the court fee is paid, refund of 50% of that will not be ordered. If the matter is compromised or settled before the date fixed for payment of balance court fee on a suit instituted on payment of one-tenth of the court fee, Section 69 is not attracted at all but Section 4A will apply.

(3) Section 4A is attracted only when there is compromise or settlement which is reported before the date fixed by the court for payment of balance court fee and does not apply when the case is to be decreed on admission of parties. Under Section 69. half of the full court fees paid can be refund