##PAGE1##

CM-4764-C-2026 in

RSA-887-2022 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

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

138 CM 4764-C-2026 in

RSA-887-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

Gurmej Singh and another .… Appellants

Versus

Neki Ram .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for the applicant-appellants.

Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate

for the non-applicant/respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-4764-C-2026

1. Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151

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

21.08.2026 to some early date as the matter stands compromised between

the parties.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate who is present in Court

accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has ‘no

objection’ in case, the present application is allowed.

4. Heard.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned in the

application, the same is allowed; and the main second appeal along with

RISHU KATARIA

2026.04.24 12:35

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

CM-4764-C-2026 in

RSA-887-2022 (O&M) -2-

all Civil Miscellaneous applications is taken up for final hearing today

itself.

CM-9034-C-2025 in/and RSA-887-2022

1. Prayer in the application (CM-9034-C-2025) filed under

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

the main appeal in terms of settlement/compromise dated 23.07.2025

(Annexure A-1) arrived at between the parties.

2. Briefly stated, the defendant/appellants are in second appeal

against the judgment of reversal dated 18.01.2022, whereby the appeal

filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Sri Mutksar Sahib; and the judgment and decree dated

30.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Malout dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession by

way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 03.08.2015, was

set aside.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem

that the entire dispute which is the subject matter of the present second

appeal, stands settled between the parties by way of compromise dated

23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1).

4. As such, learned counsel for the applicant/appellants prays

that he may be permitted to withdraw the main second appeal in terms of

the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Permitted to do so.

RISHU KATARIA

2026.04.24 12:35

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

CM-4764-C-2026 in

RSA-887-2022 (O&M) -3-

6. The main second appeal (RSA-887-2022) is dismissed as

withdrawn, in terms of compromise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1)

effected between the parties.

7. Needless to say that both the parties shall abide by the terms

and conditions of the aforesaid compromise (Annexure A-1).

CM-9035-C-2025

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

Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 151 CPC is for refund of Court

fee.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellants submits that

since the matter stands compromised between the parties as per

compromise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1), the court fee may be

refunded.

10. Heard.

11. 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

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)