The main legal point established in the judgment is that court fee can be refunded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside the Court, in line with the intention behind the provisions of law to encourage the process of alternate dispute resolution.

ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-1315-C-2023

1. This is an application for decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise dated 28.01.2023 (Annexure A-1), a copy of which has been handed over in Court and is marked as Exhibit C-1.

2. Ms. Meher Nagpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/appellants states that she has no objection if the present application is allowed and the main appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise.

3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

RSA No.4233 of 2013

4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the parties to the lis have since compromised the matter. The statements of the parties were recorded by this Court on 19.05.2023. Learned counsel for the parties state that they have no objection if the present appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise dated 28.01.2023.

5. In view of the statements made by the parties which were recorded on 19.05.2023 and in view of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties in Court today, the present appeal is disposed off in terms of the Compromise, Ex.C1. The Compromise Ex.C1 shall be made a part of the decree-sheet. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

CM-4581-C-2023

6. This is an application under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for refund of court fee.

7. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-appellants would contend that in view of the compromise between the parties in the appeal (RSA No.4233 of 2013), the applicant-appellants are entitled to the refund of court fee and in this regard he 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].

8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants.

9. In Pritam Singh’s case (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.”

10. 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. M/s 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]