Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 05.07.2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 65(b) of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act may kindly be ordered to be allowed and court fee paid by the petitioner for Rupees 1,40,510/- may kindly be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.

Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that upon the compromise entered into between the parties, an application was moved under Section 63(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') seeking refund of the court fee. The said application was dismissed on account of the fact that such application ought to be moved under Section 65(b) of the Act of 1961.

3. For ready reference, Section 65(b) of the Act of 1961 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Where the Court refers the parties to a suit to anyone of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908 and the matter is settled by one of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court the impugned order, wherein learned court below has already recorded that since the compromise, out of court, had happened between the parties, therefore, no indulgence could have been granted for refund of the court fee.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Mool Singh vs. Abdul Jabbar, 2012(1) DNJ (Raj.) 31, decided on 28.11.2011, which reads as under:-

"In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner for returning the court-fee upon compromise was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amendment was made in the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and new Section 65B was added whereby it is provided that in the event of settlement of dispute under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 2008 (sic 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) the full amount of court-fee paid in respect of such suit; but, in this case, although the matter was not referred under Section 89, C.P.C. but the fact remains that the matter was settled as per spirit of compromise and suit was withdrawn by the petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, obviously the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for issuing the certificate to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) the amount of fee paid in respect of the suit but the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner on hyper-technical ground, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to issue certificate authorizing the petitioner-plaintiff to receive back from the Collector (Stamps) full amount of the fee paid by him in respect of the plaint.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 452/2009, Arvind Deval vs. Mool Singh Deval and submits that in the similar circumstances the coordinate Bench