ORDER

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"It is humbly prayed that writ petition may kindly be allowed order impugned Annexure P/1 dated 16-07-09 passed by 4th Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Guna in M.J.C. No.3/09 may kindly be quashed and order for refund of court fees as paid by petitioner on the plaint may kindly be passed.

Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.

Cost be awarded."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after execution of impugned decree, the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and in pursuance thereof, counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be disposed of with a prayer that the Court fee of Rs.1,04,800/- paid by him before 4th Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Guna in M.J.C. No.03/09 be refunded to the petitioner.

3. None for the respondents even after service of notice.

4. Now the question arises as to whether this Court, in the aforesaid circumstances, can pass order for refund of the Court fees as provided under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 states as under :-

"16. Refund of fee - Where the court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the court authorising him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint."

5. In the case of A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd. ILR 2006 Kar 4032, Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, held as follows: "6. Considering the object behind the Amendment Act, 1999 inserting section 89 of CPC and also the insertion of Section 16, it is clear that the object of providing of refund of Full Court Fees, is to encourage the settlement of the disputes in terms of section 89 of CPC. In this case, the parties agreed for settlement in terms suggested by the Court and accordingly, they have settled their dispute outside the Court. The judicial settlement is also one of the alternative method of settlement of the disputes.

As such, in our considered view, in any settlement arrived in terms of section 89 of CPC including the judicial settlements at the intervention and on terms suggested by the Court, the appellant is entitled for refund of Full Court Fees, as otherwise, it would be meaningless if the provisions of section 16 are not applied for settlement of dispute by the parties under section 89.

Section 89 does provide for settlement of dispute at any stage of the proceeding, whether it is by way of method referred to therein or by judicial settlement as contemplated under section 89 sub-section (1). As such, we are of the opinion that if the parties come forward to settle their dispute before the Court itself, they should not be denied of refund of Full Court Fees on the ground that they have not settled the dispute before any of the four methods provided under section 89 of CPC. The object behind section 89 is to encourage the parties to arrive at settlement and if that object is sought to be achieved by means of referring the matter to any of the four methods mentioned in section 89, then even the settlement arrived at the earliest stage before the Court would also be one of the method provided under section 89 sub-section (1). Hence, we feel it as just and appropriate to order for full refund of Court Fees in the case of parties settling their dispute before the Court as well as before any of the Forum mentioned under Section 89 of the CPC. No party should be discriminated in the matter of refund of Court Fees mainly on the ground that they have settled the dispute at the earliest stage before the Court without recourse to any of the methods mentioned under section 89 of th