Koshy, Ag. C.J.

A learned Judge of this Court referred the following question of law to be decided by a Division Bench:

"In a case where suit is dismissed as not pressed and there is no investigation, is the party entitled for refund of one-half of the court fee?".

In Peirce Leslie India Ltd. v. Kunheerium, 1978 KLT 711, it was held by a learned Single Judge that when the case is settled out of court and if the relief is not pressed, refund of court fee is not possible, as it is not an admission as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act. In Aravindaksha Prabhu v. Shamsuddin, 2003 (1) KLT 644, a contrary view was taken by the learned Judge, who later referred the matter for authoritative pronouncement, as the decision in Peirce Leslie India Ltd.s case was not cited before His Lordship earlier. The decision in Aravindaksha Prabhus case was dissented by another learned Judge in Ramachandran Pillai v. Kerala Water Authority, 2006(1) KLT 784. Since different opinions were given in the above reported decisions, this question was referred to the Division Bench.

2. We may extract below Section 69 of the Kerala Courts Fees and Suit Valuation Act, (for short, "the Act") which governs the field.

"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 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 per Sec.4A or one-third of the amount of fee on memorandum of appeal as per S.52 has been paid by the parties.".

The above section provides for refund of court fee on two contingencies. (i) when the suit or appeal is compromised and (ii) when the suit is decided solely on the admission of parties without any investigation. We are only concerned with the second limb. Before answering the questions referred to by the learned Single Judge, we may consider the facts of the three cases mentioned in the reference order.

1. 3. In Peirce Leslie India Ltd.s case (supra), the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of certain amount under a promissory note executed by the defendant. The case stood posted to 19.1976 The defendant was absent on that date and was declared ex parte. The suit was adjourned to 29.1976. On 29.1976, the Advocate for the plaintiff filed a statement stating that the suit has been settled out of court and therefore the suit may be dismissed as settled on plaintiffs admission without taking any evidence and that half court fee may be refunded under Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees Act. Following the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff moved for refund of half of court fee which was rejected by the lower court. The plaintiff filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court. The learned Judge was of the opinion that only when the suit is decreed on the admission of the plaint claim by the defendant or admission by the plaintiff of the claim in the counter claim of the defendant, it can be stated that the suit was disposed of on the basis of the admission of parties and occasion to refund the court fees arises under Section 69 of the Act. Learned Judge has also referred to Order XII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before it was amended in 1976, and held that, admission should be understood in the same sense as it is used in Civil Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Evidence Act and when the suit is not decreed on the admission on the defendant, the court fee cannot be refunded under Section 69 of the Act.

4. In Aravindaksha Prabhus case (supra), a contrary view was taken. Learned Judge held that admission mentioned in Section 69 of the Act should be understood in the ordinary sense and it is not necessary to go into Section