The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 89 CPC and Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 can be applied to allow for the refund of court fees in cases where a compromise has been effected and the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise, even if the settlement has taken place outside the Court.

ORDER

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral). - Present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to challenge the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kosli dismissing the application for refund of the court fees.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present case are that an application under Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for review of the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2021 was filed. It is stated in the application that at the time of the compromise and recording of the statement of the applicant, the applicant had specifically requested that the court fees to the tune of Rs.63,000/- be refunded. However, inadvertently, the finding qua refund of court fees was not mentioned in the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2021. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.12.2021 dismissed the said application holding that since the suit was not withdrawn but was decreed in terms of the compromise, hence no refund of court fees could be ordered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by this Court in Surender Kumar Vs. Hans Raj Mandi [2021(2) RCR (Civil) 851]; Pritam Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar [2019(1) Law Herald 721]; and Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015(1) RCR (Civil) 955] to contend that even in a case in which a compromise has been effected and the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise, an application for refund of court fees could be allowed as the provisions of Section 89 CPC would apply and the benefit of Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 would be available to the plaintiff.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In Pritam Singh's {supra) it has been held as under :

"7. By referring to Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 955 (P&H), learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 89 CPC would apply even in cases of counter claims in suits and also in appeals, counter objections and counter appeals and benefit of Section 16 of the Court Fee Act is available to the appellant in appeal in case of settlement irrespective of fact whether it was before the Lok Adalat or otherwise. The refund of Court fee cannot be denied merely because the matter has not been settled before the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel also relied upon A. Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore and another, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374, Kamalamma Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Honnali, 2010(1) AIR Kar. R 279 and CR No.874 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. Hukam Singh decided on 15.09.2009. "

In the case of Surender Kumar (supra) it was held that:

"10. The counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, in the light of the principles enshrined in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 90 CPC, the parties are entitled to be refunded the court fees paid by them in the Courts below as well as this Hon'ble Court irrespective of the fact that the settlement was reached without the intervention of the Court and outside Court.

11. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon Pradeep Sonawat vs. Satish Prakash, AIR 2015 Pb. 130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. Hukam Singh, CR. No.874 of 2009 decided on 15.9.2009; Harish Kumar (deceased) through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; Naresh Kumar vs. Mfs Jasmer Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., RSA. No. 1265 of 2019 decided on 10.09.2019; A. Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka High Court]; and Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Marketing Society & Ors., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 [Karnataka High Court].

12. A perusal of the decisions mentioned above makes it clear that court fee can be refunded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside the Court. This is also the intention behind the provisions