RSA-2141- IN THE HIG 219 Mander Sing Bhola Singh CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. judgment of respondent/p the judgmen Judge (Junio the plaintiff 2. counsel filed 3. that he may matter stand of ₹4,00,00 respondent/p the executio -2023 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA


RSA Date o er Singh and others Versus Singh M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. SS Gill, Advocate for the ap I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant/appellants are i ent of reversal dated 27.04.2023, wh dent/plaintiff was allowed by the lear dgment and decree dated 09.08.2018 Junior Division), Dabwali dismissing intiff was set aside. Fresh Vakalatnama with ‘no el filed on behalf of the appellant/defen At the very outset, learned coun e may be permitted to withdraw the p stands settled between the parties; ,00,000/- stands paid by the appell dent/plaintiff/Decree-holder. Further, xecution petition filed by the resp ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2141-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 .… Appellants .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA r the appellants. are in second appeal against the , whereby the appeal filed by the he learned District Judge, Sirsa; and 8.2018 passed by the learned Civil issing the suit for recovery filed by th ‘no objection’ from previous t/defendants is taken on record. d counsel for the appellants submits the present second appeal as, the and the entire decretal amount appellant/Judgment-debtors to the rther, vide order dated 19.01.2026 respondent/plaintiff bearing No. the the and ivil d by ious mits , the ount the No. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2141- Exe-92-2023 dismissed as 4. Executing C 5. 6. dismissed as 7. 8. since the ma may be refun 9. 10. Ashok Kuma 11. Prakash @ S as under:- -2023 (O&M) -2- 2023 titled as ‘Bhola Singh vs. Man sed as withdrawn being fully satisfied Copy of order dated 19.01.2 ting Court, Dabwali, handed over in C Heard. In view of the afore-noted facts ssed as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, s At this stage, learned counsel f the matter stands settled between the p e refunded to the appellant/defendants Heard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in umar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721] “7. By referring to Pradeep So Satish Chandra, 2015(1) RCR counsel for the appellant con would apply even in cases of co in appeals, counter objection benefit of Section 16 of the Cou appellant in appeal in case of whether it was before the Lo refund of Court fee cannot be matter has not been settled be counsel also relied upon A. S Bank Ltd., Bangalore and anoth Kamalamma Vs. Honnali T Co-operative Marketing Societ Kar R 279 and CR No.874 of Hukam Singh decided on 15.09. Further, in the matter of Pr @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR s. Mander Singh and another’, was tisfied. 9.01.2026 passed by the learned er in Court, is taken on record. d facts, the present second appeal is any, shall also stand disposed of. nsel for the appellants submits that n the parties, therefore, the court fee ndants. urt in the case of Pritam Singh Vs. has held as under : p Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ RCR (Civil) 955 (P&H), learned contended that Section 89 CPC of counter claims in suits and also tions and counter appeals and Court Fee Act is available to the e of settlement irrespective of fact e Lok Adalat or otherwise. The ot be denied merely because the d before the Lok Adalat. Learned A. Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian another, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374, li Taluk Agricultural Produce ciety Ltd., Honnali, 2010(1) AIR 4 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. 5.09.2009. Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish RCR (Civil) 955]: it has been held was rned al is t fee s. @ ed C so nd he ct he he ed an 4, ce IR s. ish held RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2141- -2023 (O&M) -3- “7. Conjoint reading of Sect 89 of CPC leaves no doubt that for settlement of cases by al mechanism. Be it Lok Adalat o Arbitration or Conciliation or end the litigation once for all terms of Section 89 CPC res litigation. Resort to appeal or re legal arena. Merely because t not taken up in daily Lok Adala Haryana State Legal Services A each Court in the State after taken to the prejudice of the pet 8. Concept of daily Lok alternative dispute redressal ma the State of Haryana are held in of the Sessions Division, after into a daily Lok Adalat and jud this, depending upon the wo settlement every day in each C many daily Lok Adalats as are Sessions Division. 9. The question simplicite stage in this petition is, as to w refunded to the petitioner- settlement arrived at between recorded by the Court and wa dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure P statement of the parties as also the Court and forms part of th acted upon by the parties, the dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure compromise 10. In tune with the provis endeavour is made by every Ci by one of the modes provid settlement between the partie arrived at in terms of Section 16 of the Act, which is beneficia its domain and content needs concerned is also required to entitled to get back the court fe Even if the plaintiff does not a acting suo moto invoking the p Section 16 of the Act with Section that endeavor of the legislature is y alternative disputes settlement lat or out of Court settlement or or Mediation, effort always is to all times to come. Settlement in results in complete end to the or revision statutorily is out of the se the matter for settlement was dalat, which under the aegis of the ces Authority, is held every day in fter Court hours, should not be petitioner-plaintiff. ok Adalat is not alien to the l machinery. Daily Lok adalats in ld in all the districts. Every Court after court hours, gets converted d judicial officers hold sittings for workload of cases coming for ch Court. This way, here are as are the number of Courts in that citer posing for answer at this to whether the court fee should be - plaintiff, pursuant to the een the parties, which was duly was accepted or not? Judgment re P/3] clearly reveals that the also compromise was recorded by of the record. After having been the Court had passed the decree ure P/3] in terms of the said rovisions of Section 89 of CPC, y Civil Court to decide the matter ovided in Section 89 CPC for arties. When such settlement is ion 89 CPC, provision of Section eficial and benevolent provision in eds to be invoked and the Court to inform the plaintiff that he is rt fee affixed by him on the plaint. ot apply for the same, the Court he provisions of Section 16 of the on is nt or to in he he as he in be he in rt ed for or as at his be he ly nt he by en ee id C, ter or is on in urt is nt. urt he RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2141- 12. (Civil) 851] -2023 (O&M) -4- Act, should issue a certificate receive back the court fee, pa from the Collector. 11. Though, this matter is n may be mentioned that this pr cases of counter claims in suit objections and counter appe locomotion to the provisions consonance therewith, the P amendment to the Court Fee A 16 therein. There is no denyin behind insertion of Section 16 the litigants to adopt the a methodology for expeditious dis a view to end the litigation forev xxx xxx 16. Going a step further, compromise is with the persua the parties by themselves in t otherwise, invocation of provis should be made in all cases s alternative dispute resolution m In Surender Kumar Vs. Hans 51]: it has been held as under:- 10. The counsel for the appli since the dispute between the p light of the principles enshrine Fees Act, 1870 and Section 90 to be refunded the court fees below as well as this Hon'ble that the settlement was reache the Court and outside Court. 11. In support of his submi upon Pradeep Sonawat vs. Satis Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. Huka decided on 15.9.2009; Harish K vs. Pawan Kumar Sehgal, RSA. 09.09.2019; Naresh Kumar vs. Singh & Ors., RSA. No.1265 of 2 Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka Hig Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk A icate authorizing the plaintiff to , paid in respect of such plaint, is not in issue here, even then it is provision would apply even in suits as also in appeals, counter appeals. 12. To provide added ions of Section 89 of CPC in e Parliament had brought an ee Act, 1870 by inserting Section enying to the fact that the object 16 to the Act was to encourage e alternative dispute resolution s disposal of the disputes and with forever. xxx er, it is felt that whether the rsuasion of the Court or amongst in terms of Section 89 CPC or rovision of Section 16 of the Act es so that settlements by way of on mechanism are encouraged.” ans Raj Mandi [2021 (2) RCR pplicant-appellant contended that he parties has been settled, in the rined in Section 16 of the Court 90 CPC, the parties are entitled fees paid by them in the Courts 'ble Court irrespective of the fact ached without the intervention of ubmission, the counsel has relied Satish Prakash, AIR 2015 Pb. 130; ukam Singh, CR. No.874 of 2009 sh Kumar (deceased) through LRs RSA. No.3645 of 2018 decided on r vs. M/s Jasmer Singh Harphool of 2019 decided on 10.09.2019; A. dian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) High Court]; and Kamalamma & k Agricultural Produce Coop. to nt, it in ter ed in an on ect ge on ith he gst or ct of R at he rt ed rts ct of ed 0; 09 Rs on ol A. 5) & RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2141- 13. between the appellants to view of the refund of the to the appell 15.05.2026 rishu -2023 (O&M) -5- Marketing Society & Ors., [Karnataka High Court].11 12. A perusal of the decisio clear that court fee can be ref compromise/settlement has ta Court. This is also the intention relied upon by the counsel so dispute resolution is encouraged In the present case, admittedl en the parties and the entire decretal ants to respondent/plaintiff/Decree-ho of the above settled position of law, of the Court fee as per Rules. Accor appellants, as per Rules. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable rs., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 cisions mentioned above makes it refunded to the parties where a s taken place even outside the ntion behind the provisions of law l so that the process of alternate aged.” mittedly, the matter stands settled cretal amount has been paid by the holder. In view thereof and in f law, the appellants are entitled to Accordingly, Court fee be refunded ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No 10 it a he w te ttled the d in d to RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.