Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh(Since Deceased) Through ... vs Charan Singh And Anr on 30 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.01.2025
GURNAM SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS .... Appellants
VERSUS
CHARAN SINGH AND ANR. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. Amit Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. R.K. Poonia, Advocate for respondent No.2.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
RSA-2920-2022
1. Learned counsel the parties state that the parties have since settled the matter and that an amount of ₹30,00,000 (rupees thirty lakh) has been paid to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 as full and final settlement and in view thereof the present appeal may be disposed off in terms of the compromise.
2. Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.1 states that money has been received by plaintiff-respondent No.1 and that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 would have no objection if the present appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. AMAN JAIN 2025.01.31 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M) -2-
3. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 17.01.2023, the present regular second appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise. The compromise dated 17.01.2023 shall form part of the decree sheet. CM-1615-C-2023 & CM-1680-C-2023
4. These are applications for refund of the court fee.
5. Learned counsel for the parties would contend that since the matter stands compromised between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the court fee may be refunded. In support of their arguments, they 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].
6. Heard.
7. 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 AMAN JAIN 2025.01.31 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M) -3- 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 matter 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 AMAN JAIN 2025.01.31 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M) -4- 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. AMAN JAIN 2025.01.31 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M) -5-
10. In tune with the provisions of Section 89 of CPC, endeavour is made by every Civil Court to decide the matter by one of the modes provided in Section 89 CPC for settlement between the parties. When such settlement is arrived at in terms of Section 89 CPC, provision of Section 16 of the Act, which is beneficial and benevolent provision in its domain and content needs to be invoked and the Court concerned is also required to inform the plaintiff that he is entitled to get back the court fee affixed by him on the plaint. Even if the plaintiff does not apply for the same, the Court acting suo moto invoking the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, should issue a certificate authorizing the plaintiff to receive back the court fee, paid in respect of such plaint, from the Collector.
11. Though, this matter is not in issue here, even then it may be mentioned that this provision would apply even in cases of counter claims in suits as also in appeals, counter objections and counter appeals.
12. To provide added locomotion to the provisions of Section 89 of CPC in consonance therewith, the Parliament had brought an amendment to the Court Fee Act, 1870 by inserting Section 16 therein. There is no denying to the fact that the object behind insertion of AMAN JAIN 2025.01.31 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M) -6- Section 16 to the Act was to encourage the litigants to adopt the alternative dispute resolution methodology for expeditious disposal of the disputes and with a view to end the litigation forever.
xxx xxxx xxx
16. Going a step further, it is felt that whether the compromise is with the persuasion of the Court or amongst the parties by themselves in terms of Section 89 CPC or otherwise, invocation of provision of Section 16 of the Act should be made in all cases so that settlements by way of alternative dispute resolution mechanism are encouraged."
In Surender Kumar's case (supra) it has been held as under :
10. The counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, in the light of the principles enshrined in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 90 CPC, the parties are entitled to be refunded the court fees paid by them in the Courts below as well as this Hon'ble Court irrespective of the fact that the settlement was reached without the intervention of the Court and outside Court.
11. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon Pradeep Sonawat vs. Satish Prakash, AIR 2015 Pb.
130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. Hukam Singh, CR. No.874 of 2009 decided on 15.9.2009; Harish Kumar (deceased) AMAN JAIN 2025.01.31 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 119+279 RSA-2920-2022 (O&M) -7- through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; Naresh Kumar vs. M/s Jasmer Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., RSA. No.1265 of 2019 decided on 10.09.2019; A. Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka High Court]; and Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Marketing Society & Ors., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 [Karnataka High Court]. 11
12. A perusal of the decisions mentioned above makes it clear that court fee can be refunded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside the Court. This is also the intention behind the provisions of law relied upon by the counsel so that the process of alternate dispute resolution is encouraged."
8. In the present case, admittedly, a compromise has been entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. In view thereof and in view of the above settled position of law, the parties are entitled to refund of the court fee as per Rules. Accordingly, court fee be refunded to the parties as per Rules.
9. CMs stand disposed off.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
30.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AMAN JAIN
2025.01.31 09:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment