Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Dismissal of application of the plaintiff, petitioner herein, for return of the court fee affixed on the plaint, wherein litigation had ended in a mutually settled compromise, forms genesis of this revision petition.

2. Based on an agreement to sell, the plaintiff, petitioner herein, had brought a suit on 18.1.2012 against the defendant for specific performance of the same. During the proceedings of the suit, on 10.9.2012, the matter was compromised and the suit was decided in terms of the said mutually agreed settlement. Compromise was acted upon and parties were satisfied.

3. An application was moved by the petitioner for refund of Court fee on 22.1.2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2013 [Annexure P5]. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order, but had withdrawn the same vide order dated 21.10.2013 [Annexure P/7] being not maintainable.

4. This revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff, petitioner herein, against the said order claiming that his prayer for refund of the court fee was wrongly rejected by the Court below to his great prejudice vide impugned order dated 25.4.2013.

5. It is contended that as the matter had been settled by way of a compromise, refund of court fee was to be the necessary consequence in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 [for short, “the Act”]. Section 16 of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“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 authorizing him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.”

6. Since reference to Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “CPC”] has been made in this provision, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 89 of CPC, which reads as under:-

“85. Persons specially appointed by Government to prosecute or defend on behalf of foreign Rulers.-- (1) The Central Government may, at the request of the Ruler of a foreign State or at the request of any person competent in the opinion of the Central Government to act on behalf of such Ruler, by order, appoint any persons to prosecute or defend any suit on behalf of such Ruler, and any persons so appointed shall be deemed to be the recognized agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of such Ruler.

(2) An appointment under this section may be made for the purpose of a specified suit or of several specified suits, or for the purpose of all such suits as it may from time to time be necessary to prosecute or defend on behalf of such Ruler.

(3) A person appointed under this section may authorize or appoint any other persons to make appearances and applications and do acts in any such suit or suits as if he were himself a party thereto.”

7. Conjoint reading of Section 16 of the Act with Section 89 of CPC leaves no doubt that endeavor of the legislature is for settlement of cases by alternative disputes settlement mechanism. Be it Lok Adalat or out of Court settlement or Arbitration or Conciliation or Mediation, effort always is to end the litigation once for all times to come. Settlement in terms of Section 89 CPC results in complete end to the litigation. Resort to appeal or revision statutorily is out of the legal arena. Merely because the matter for settlement was not taken up in daily Lok Adalat, which under the aegis of the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, is held every day in each Court in the State after Court hours, should not be taken to the prejudice of the petitioner-plaintiff.

8. Concept of daily Lok Adalat is not alien to the alternative dispute redressal machinery. Daily Lok Adalats in the State of Haryana are held in all the districts. Every Court of the Sessions Division, af