JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by learned Court below, whereby, an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, thereby, seeking refund of Court fee, has been dismissed.

2. The background facts, as culled out, from the paper-book are that, initially , Civil Suit No.626-2014 , titled as ' Chandigarh Royal City v. Joginder Singh and another' was filed for seeking possession by way of specific performance and also sought permanent injunction.

3. However, during the pendency of the suit, a compromise was effected between the parties on 19.12.2017, copy whereof, has also been placed on record as Annexure P-7. In view of the aforesaid compromise, the parties expressed their intention, not to proceed further with the suit and hence, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn, being compromised, as ordered on 19.12.2017. The order dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned Court below, vis-a-vis, withdrawal of the suit, is reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

"Put up before me being In-charge as learned Presiding Officer is on medical leave till 17.1.2018.

Sh.Nirmal Singh Adv appeared on behalf of plaintiff and Sh. P.S.Chechi Adv appeared on behalf of defendants and filed respective power of attorneys.

Plaintiff suffered statement wherein stated that defendants have compromised the matter with him and compromise dated 19.12.2017 is Ex.C1. He further stated that parties shall be bound by the compromise Ex.C1 and he has no objection if stay order dated 29.7.2015 is vacated. He further stated that in view compromise, he does not want to proceed with the present case and withdraw the same.

Defendants also suffered statement wherein stated that they have compromised the matter with the plaintiff. Compromise is Ex.C1 and they shall be bound by the compromise Ex.C1.

In view of compromise between the parties, the stay order dated 29.7.2015 is hereby ordered to be vacated. Necessary intimation be sent to the Revenue authorities & present case is hereby ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn being compromised. Parties shall be bound by the compromise Ex.C1. File be consigned to the Record room.

4. Thereafter, an application was filed for refund of the Court fee of Rs.11,25,200/-, which was affixed by the petitioner-plaintiff, at the time of filing of the suit. However, vide impugned order dated 15.05.2019, the said application was dismissed, while making observation, as herein given:-

"Order dated 19.12.2017 referred above perused. Perusal of which the said order shows that no order as to refund of court fee has been passed by the court. As such the application under consideration is devoid of merits and the same is hereby declined. File be consigned to the record."

5. It is this decline of prayer for refund of Court fee, for which the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court, in the revision petition.

6. Notice of motion was issued, but none had made appearance on behalf of the respondents.

7. Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, deals with the refund of Court fee, where settlement had taken place and it reads as herein given:-

"16. Refund of fee.-- Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint."

8. section 89 CPC makes provision for the settlement of cases, by alternative disputes settlement mechanism. Be it Lok Adalat, or out of Court settlement or Ar