IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 2234 of 2025 SATISH POL Versus GOPAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Gaurav Chhabra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Tarun Pagare - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 6/State.

ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Order XLVII Rule

1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for review of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in S.A. No.2544/2025 (Satish Pol Vs. Gopal and others), which was disposed of by this Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.

2544/2025, the Court has ordered as follows :-

“6. As per Section 89(d) of the CPC wherein the Court shall follow such procedure as deemed fit for judicial settlement with effect to compromise between the parties. Considering the aforesaid, let the compromise as stated by the parties be recorded and verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on the date as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court. Now, considering the ground of refund of court fees after the verification and recording of the compromise between the parties before the Principal Registrar of this Court, thereafter the trial Court is directed to take steps forthwith for the purpose of refund of the Court fees to the appellant. With the aforesaid, this second appeal stands disposed off in view of the compromise agreement reached between the parties. The certificate of paid court fees should be made as per Rules.”

3. He has also contended that even after passing final order dated 17.11.2025 in view of compromise agreement reached between the parties, decree has not been drawn, which requires to be drawn in term of the compromise. He has also requested that the Court Fees be refunded to the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C. Subramaniam passed in SLP (C) No. 3063/2021 and judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dayaram Vs. Smt. Laxmi Agrawal, ILR 2023 MP 263 , wherein it has clearly acknowledged that refund of Court Fee is permissible even when parties privately settle their disputes outside Court. However, inadvertently, this directions were issued to the Trial Court to take steps for refund of Court Fees. Here, it is submitted that Court Fees so deposited by the petitioner for filing Second Appeal in the High Court, and learned Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to grant refund of the Court Fees. Thus, it is prayed to refund the Court Fee so deposited by the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on I.A. No.

11792/2025, which is an application under Section 15 of Court Fees Act, 1870 for refund of Court Fees and also perused the order dated 17.11.2025.

5. So far as the decree of the appeal order dated 17.11.2025 passed by this Court is concerned, once this Court has allowed the appeal on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, then decree ought to have been drawn in terms of compromise. Therefore, a decree be drawn accordingly, as per the terms and conditions of the compromise. The compromise so arrived at between the parties, is also the part of said decree.

6. Now, coming to the question of refund of Court Fee in filing Second Appeal No. 2544/2025, when the appeal was disposed of on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties is concerned, on this aspect, in the case of Dayaram (supra), this Court has categorically held as under :-

"3. Now the question arises as to whether this Court, in the aforesaid circumstances, can pass order for refund of 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