SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULWINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
JAGROOP SINGH – Respondent
RSA_188_2024



##PAGE1##

CM-6462-64-C-2026 in

RSA-188-2024 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)

130 CM Nos. 6462-64-C2026 in

RSA188-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.05.2026

Kulwinder Singh .… Appellant

Versus

Jagroop Singh .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for

Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-6462-C-2026

Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151

CPC is for preponing the date of hearing in the main appeal from

30.07.2026 to some early date as the matter stands compromised between

the parties.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is

supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and the main second

appeal along with other accompanying Civil Miscellaneous applications is

taken up for final hearing today itself.

CM-6463-C-2026 in/and RSA-188-2024

1. Prayer in the application (CM-6463-C-2026) filed under

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, is for withdrawal of

the main appeal as, the matter stands settled between the parties and

agreed amount of ₹3,00,000/- has been paid by the applicant/appellant/

Judgment-debtor to the respondent/plaintiff/Decree-holder. Accordingly,

RISHU KATARIA

2026.05.21 09:11

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

##PAGE2##

CM-6462-64-C-2026 in

RSA-188-2024 (O&M) -2-

the Execution Petition No. EXE-401-2025, was dismissed as withdrawn

being fully satisfied vide order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed

by the learned Executing Court, Barnala.

2. Briefly stated, the defendant/appellant is in second appeal

against the concurrent findings rendered by both the District Courts,

whereby the suit for recovery filed by the respondent-plaintiff was

decreed.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that she may be permitted to withdraw the present second appeal as the

matter stands settled between the parties; and the agreed amount of

₹3,00,000/- has already been paid by the appellant-JD to the respondent-

DH.

4. In view of the above, the present application is allowed; and

the main second appeal (RSA-188-2024) is dismissed as withdrawn.

CM-6464-C-2026

5. Prayer in the present appellation filed under Section 16 of the

Court Fees Act, 1870 is for refund of Court fee.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that

since the matter stands compromised between the parties, the court fee

may be refunded.

7. Heard.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Singh Vs.

Ashok Kumar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721] 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

RISHU KATARIA

2026.05.21 09:11

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

##PAGE3##

CM-6462-64-C-2026 in

RSA-188-2024 (O&M) -3-

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.

9. Further, in the matter of Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish

Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 955]: 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top