JUDGMENT

1. I.A. No. 2413/2023 has been filed for modification of the order dated 31.1.2023 passed in the present appeal.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant had withdrawn the appeal on the specific ground that the matter has been amicably settled out of the Court between the parties, accordingly, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled for refund of Court fees amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- deposited with the Registry of this Court. This Court while permitting the withdrawal of the appeal has not made any observation with regard to refund of the Court fees. The counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dayaram v. Smt. Laxmi Agrawal, passed in F.A. No.222/2015 decided on 20th of September, 2022.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. I.A. No. 15231/2022 was filed seeking permission to withdraw the appeal with a specific averments that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties held consultations and have arrived at a mutual compromise by way of a settlement and in light of the said settlement, the appellant does not wish to prosecute the instant appeal and wishes to withdraw the same with liberty to file afresh, if such occasion arises.

5. However, during the course of argument the appellant gave up his prayer for liberty to file afresh appeal. A photocopy of the mutual agreement arrived at between the parties was filed along with I.A. No.15300/2022 which was duly accepted by the appellant and the parties had submitted that they shall be bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement.

6. Accordingly, this Court held that since both the parties have agreed upon the terms and conditions arrived at out of the Court, therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn without any liberty.

7. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court should have directed for refund of the Court fees or not?

8. The Supreme Court in the case of The High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam & ors., decided on 17.2.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.3063-3064/2021 has held as under :--

“15. In light of these established principles of statutory interpretation, we shall now proceed to advert to the specific provisions that are the subject of the present controversy. The narrow interpretation of section 89 of CPC and section 69-A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the Petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein parties who are referred to a Mediation Centre or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their Court fee; whilst parties who similarly save the Court’s time and resources by privately settling their dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not require the Court’s interference to seek a settlement. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, clearly leads to an absurd and unjust outcome, where two classes of parties who are equally facilitating the object and purpose of the aforesaid provisions are treated differentially, with one class being deprived of the benefit of section 69-A of the 1955 Act. A literal or technical interpretation, in this background, would only lead to injustice and render the purpose of the provisions nugatory – and thus, needs to be departed from, in favour of a purposive interpretation of the provisions.

16. It is pertinent to note that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgement has been affirmed by the High Courts in other states as well. Reference may be had to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kamalamma & ors. v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., [(2010) 1 AIR Kar. R 279], wherein it was held as follows :

“6. Whether the parties to a suit or appeal or any other proceeding get their dispute settled amicably through Arbitration, or meditation or conciliation in the Lok Adalath, by invok