The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870, court fee is to be refunded only if the court refers the parties to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Plaintiffs who are husband and wife have filed the instant revision petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 26.09.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurgaon thereby declining prayer of the plaintiffs for refund of the court fee paid in the suit, in view of the compromise effected between the parties, pursuant where to the plaintiffs withdrew the suit. Since there was no dispute between the parties on this aspect and since matter of refund of Court fee was involved, notice of revision petition was issued to State of Haryana.

2. I nave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870 (in short, the Act), the petitioners are entitled to refund of Court fee, irrespective of whether the parties effected-settlement within the purview of Section 89 of the Code of Civii Procedure (in short CPC) or effected cut of Court settlement without intervention of the Court or any mode referred to in Section 89 CPC. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Division Bench Judgment of Karnataka High Court in A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Anr., 2007(2) Civil Court cases 695 and Single Bench Judgment of the said High Court in Kamalamma & Ors. v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Honnali & Ors., 2010 (1) AIR Karnataka Reporter 279.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that since compromise in this case was not effected within the purview of Section 89 CPC, the petitioners are not entitled to refund of court fee, because their case is not covered by Section 16 of the Act.

5. I have carefully considered aforer.aid contentions. In order to 4. properly appreciate the same, Section 89 CPC as well as Section 16 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:

"89 Settlement of disputes outside the Court. - (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and given them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for - (a) arbitration;

(b) conciliation:

(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

(d) mediation.

(2) Where a dispute has been referred - (a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;

(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;

(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."

"16. Refund of fee.- Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint."

6. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that under Section 16 of the Act, Court