1. These revision petitions are filed by the common revision petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 25th February 1999 in LA. 407 of 1999 in O.S. 787 of 1997 and LA. 406 of 1999 in O.S. 789 of 1997.

2. Those suits were filed by the revision petitioner against the respondents for specific performance of two agreements for sale and in the alternative for return of the amount paid as advance. During the pendency of the suits the matter was settled between the parties and the settlement was reported to the Court. The plaintiff, in view of the settlement, did not want to further prosecute the suits. It was in these circumstances that the plaintiff reported settlement to the Court and did not choose to prosecute the suits.

3. The Court accepted the statement of the contestants. In one suit (O.S. 787 of 1997) it was specifically endorsed that the matter is settled between the parties. It was prayed that the suit may be dismissed and half court fee may be refunded. That endorsement is made by both Counsel. In the other there was only a statement made at the bar. The Court accepted the said statements and proceeded to dismiss the suits. There was no specific direction in the Judgments/ Decrees to refund half court fee.

4. It is in these circumstances that the revision petitioner filed I.A. 406 and 407 of 1999 in the two suits for a direction to refund half the court fee under S.69 of the Kerala Court Fees Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and for amendment of the Decree. The applications were not opposed. The fact that there was settlement of the disputes involved in both suits was not disputed. But the learned Munsiff by the impugned orders proceeded to dismiss the applications. According to the learned Munsiff a mere statement/ endorsement that the matter is settled and that the suit is not pressed is insufficient to persuade the Court to invoke its powers under S.69 of the Act and to direct refund of half the court fee.

5. The respondents have not entered appearance. The learned Government Pleader was requested to make his submissions to assist the Courts. Arguments were heard.

6. The fact that the revision petitioner/ plaintiff and the respective respondents/ defendants had settled their disputes is not disputed. The fact that the Court was apprised of such settlement is also not disputed. That the Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant had made it clear to the Court by written endorsement in one suit and by statements made at the bar in both suits that the suits were settled is again not disputed. The court below, it appears chose to reject the prayer for refund of half the court fee on the following grounds:

(i) The disposal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff does not want to prosecute the suit, even if based on a settlement cannot justify invocation of the powers under S.69:

(ii) It cannot be held that the suit was decided on the admission of parties without any investigation.

7. S.69 of the Act reads as follows:

"69. Refund in cases of compromise of 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 S.4 A or one third of the amount of fee on memorandum of appeal as required by S.52 has been paid by the parties."

The expression 'compromise' used in S.69 must be understood realistically. In Nadesan v. Dinesan (2002 (2) KLT 889) a Division Bench of this Court relied on the dictionary to understand the word "compromise". A settlement of differences by mutual concession is a compromise, it was held. The terms of the compromise are not revealed to the Court in the instant cases. But the fact remains that t