JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - CM-7010-C-2024

1. Application is allowed, as prayed for.

2. Affidavits of both the parties are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Registry to scan and tag the same at an appropriate place.

CM-3297-C-2024

3. This is an application for preponing the date of hearing of the main appeal.

4. Since the appeal itself is listed for hearing today, the present application has since been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed off as such.

CM-3298-C-2024

5. This is an application for disposal of the main appeal in terms of the compromise entered between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents are ad idem that the matter stands compromised and the statements of the parties to that effect also stand recorded before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

7. Parties have duly been identified by their respective counsel before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Mediator's report along with the written compromise has also been received by this Court.

8. In view thereof, the present application is allowed.

RSA-2470-2017

9. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents are ad idem that the parties have since compromised the matter and a written compromise dated 13.03.2024, which has been signed by all the parties, has been drawn up before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. As per the compromise, which is now marked as Ex.C-1, the appeal is to be disposed off in terms of the compromise.

10. In view thereof, the present appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly and compromise Ex.C-1 be made part of it. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

CM-3299-C-2024

11. This is an application for refund of the court fee.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant would contend that since the matter stands compromised between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the court fee may be refunded. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has relied upon the judgments passed in Pritam Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721]; Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 955] and Surender Kumar Vs. Hans Raj Mandi [2021 (2) RCR (Civil) 851].

13. Heard.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Singh (supra) has 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 Co-operative 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.

Further, in the matter of Pradeep Sonawat (supra) it has been held as under :

'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 settl