J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. Suit was one for money, which on reference to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act was settled between the parties. Compromise of the parties was recorded and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat. Ext.P1 is the copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat declined refund of the 1/ th court fee, which alone was paid in the suit, in the award, 10 expressing a view that it cannot be refunded. Plaintiff, through his power of attorney holder, moved an application before the Sub Court for refund of the 1/ th court fee paid on the plaint. Ext.P2 is the copy of that application. That application was rejected by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P3 WPC.29268/09 2 order holding that no refund had been ordered under the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Placing reliance on Vasudevan v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 993), the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement of the disputes by t