248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 15.09.2025 RSA-3885-2016 (O&M)

SHAM LAL & ANR ....Appellants Versus TILAK RAJ & ANR ...Respondents RSA-5134-2016 (O&M)

TILAK RAJ ....Appellant Versus RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-3885-2016.

None for the appellant in RSA-5134-2016.

Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA-5134-2016 and for respondent No.2 in RSA-3885-2016.

Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for respondent No.2 in RSA-5134-2016.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-12790-C-2024 in RSA-3885-2016 This is an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC seeking disposal of the main appeal in terms of compromise dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) arrived at between the parties.

2. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

Compromise deed (Annexure A-1) is taken on record.

Counsels are ad idem that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure A-1.

Appeals are ordered to be disposed off in terms of the compromise. Decree be drawn. Compromise be made part of the decree.

CM-12791-C-2024 in RSA-3885-2016 Instant application has been filed seeking refund of the Court Fees.

The issue regarding refund of Court Fee in terms of Section 89 CPC in the event of settlement of dispute outside the Court, came up for consideration before Supreme Court in the case of ‘High Court of Judicature at Madras Represented by its Registrar General vs. M.C. Subramaniam and others’, (2021) 3 SCC 560. Supreme Court observed as under:

“23. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose of Section 69-A is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma (supra), parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This is because by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the State of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third-party institution to settle the dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find that the importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifiable reason why Section 69-A should only incentivize the methods of out-of- court settlement stated in section 89, CPC and afford step-

brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.

24. Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple frivolous litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of court fees in the guise of having settled their disputes. In such cases, the Court may, having regard to the previous conduct of the parties and the principles of equity, refuse to grant relief under the relevant rules pertaining to court fees. However, we do not find the present case as being of such nature.

25. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under section