IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.03.2026 RAM KUMAR AND ORS .... Appellants VERSUS RAM NATH .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Sunil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellants.

(joined through hybrid mode)

Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. As per the Mediator’s report, the parties have since compromised the matter and a written compromise dated 11.02.2026 has also been drawn up.

2. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise dated 11.02.2026. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

3. Learned counsel for the parties contend that since the matter stands compromised between the parties, the court fee may be refunded. In support of their argument, learned counsel have 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]

4. Heard.

5. 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 case 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 settlement was not taken up in daily Lok Adalat, which under the aegis of the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, is held every day in each Court in the State after Court hours, should not be taken to the prejudice of the petitioner-

plaintiff.

8. Concept of daily Lok Adalat is not alien to the alternative dispute redressal machinery. Daily Lok adalats in the State of Haryana are held in all the districts. Every Court of the Sessions Division, after court hours, gets converted into a daily Lok Adalat and judicial officers hold sittings for this, depending upon the workload of cases coming for settlement every day in each Court. This way, here are as many daily Lok Adalats as are the number of Courts in that Sessions Division.

9. The question simpliciter posing for answer at this stage in this petition is, as to whether the court fee should be refunded to the petitioner- plaintiff, pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, which was duly recorded by the Court and was accepted or not? Judgment dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure P/3] clearly reveals that the statement of the parties as also compromise was recorded by the Court and forms part of the record. After having been acted upon by the parties, the Court had passed the decree dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure P/3] in terms of the said compromise.

10. In tune with t