Per P.K. MISRA, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent.

2. The question relates to refund of Court fee on account of the fact that the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 2006 was settled during Lok Adalat. The prayer in the writ petition is to refund of full Court fee. The learned single Judge observed that since in the Lok Adalat order it has been indicated that the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of half of the Court fee, the claim made in the writ petition for refund of full Court fee was not maintainable. It is of course true that the learned single Judge was technically correct in observing that in the order of the Lok Adalat, it has been indicated about the refund 50% of Court fee and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. In normal course, the remedy of the present appellant would have been to file a fresh application seeking for a direction regarding refund of full Court fee before the Lok Adalat authorities for rectifying the order passed in the Lok Adalat. However, as it is well known, the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,