The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to refund of court fees in cases settled before the Lok Adalat is limited to half the Court fees, as per the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

The petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.227 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli for specific performance of an agreement of sale and in the alternative for recovery of money. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat, where it ended in a compromise on 03.09.2006. In terms of the compromise, the petitioners received a sum of Rs.11,62,500/-. The Lok Adalat ordered the refund of Court fees in terms of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

2. Therefore, the petitioners filed necessary application before the Trial Court for refund of the full Court fee. But the Civil Court ordered refund of only half the Court fee. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition, seeking a direction for refund of the balance Court fee.

3. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

4. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether a person whose case is settled before the Lok Adalat, is entitled to refund of half the Court fee paid or the full Court fee paid in the suit or other proceeding?

5. The right to refund of the Court fee, in respect of a dispute settled before the Lok Adalat, emanates from Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as follows:

"21. Award of Lok Adalat.- (1)Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-Fee Act, 1870 (7 of 1870)

(2)Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award."

6. A plain reading of the above provision shows that a legal fiction is created by treating the award of the Lok Adalat as a decree of the Civil Court. Once a decree is passed on compromise, no Court fee is refundable (under normal circumstances) either under The Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870) (before its Amendment by Act 46 of 1999) or under The Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. But in order to encourage amicable settlement of disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism, in the wake of the increase in the volume of adversarial litigation, Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act provides a bait for the litigants in the form of refund of Court-Fees.

7. But while doing so, Section 21 enables the refund of Court Fees "in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870". But The Court Fees Act, 1870, was repealed under Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 in its application to the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the words "in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870" appearing in Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 have no meaning in their application to the State of Tamil Nadu, on a plain reading of the provision. Hence, it is to be seen if the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, could be read into Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to make it meaningful, in so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned.

8. Section 2(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, appears to have taken note of the above contingency, namely, that the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 have no application to several States, which have their own enactments relating to Court Fees. Section 2(2) reads as follows:-

“(2)Any reference in this Act to any other enactment or any provision thereof shall, in relation to an area in which such enactment or provision is not in force, be construed as a reference to the corresponding law