CM-6878-C RSA-1522- IN THE HIG 136 Mahabir and Manbir CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. CPC is for between the refund to the appeal. 2. against the whereby the decreed. 3. that the mat that vide ord Executing C respondent/p ‘Manbir Sin C-2026 in -2025 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA


CM- RSA Date o ir and another Versus M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Jasvinder Rao, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the application (CM is for withdrawal of the main appeal en the parties for a lump sum amo to the Court fee affixed by the appl Briefly stated, the defendant/ap t the concurrent findings rendered by the suit for recovery filed by At the very outset, learned cou matter stands settled between the p ide order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexur ting Court, Gurugram, the execu dent/plaintiff/Decree-holder bearing ir Singh vs. Mahabir Singh and ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -6878-C-2026 in RSA-1522-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2026 .… Appellants .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA cate for the applicant-appellant. CM-6878-C-2026) filed under 151 appeal as the matter stands settled amount of ₹14,00,000/-; and for e applicant/appellants in the instant t/appellants are in second appeal ered by both the District Courts, d by the respondent-plaintiff was d counsel for the appellant submits the parties. It is further submitted nexure A-1) passed by the learned execution petition filed by the aring No. EXE-184-2025 titled as and another’, was dismissed as 151 ttled for tant peal urts, was mits itted rned the d as as RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6878-C RSA-1522- withdrawn b paid an amo respondent the applican appeal. 4. 5. application ( same is allo from 22.07.2 2025) is dism 6. the matter s deposited by them. 7. 8. Ashok Kuma C-2026 in -2025 (O&M) -2- awn being fully satisfied as, the app n amount of agreed amount of ₹14, dent-DH. As such, nothing survives i plicant/appellants may be permitted t Heard. In view of the above and for ation (CM-6878-C-2026) which is su allowed; and the date of hearing in 22.07.2026 to today itself. The main dismissed as withdrawn. Further, learned counsel for the atter stands compromised between t ited by appellants with the instant se 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 e appellant/Judgment-debtors have 14,00,000/- in lump sum to the s in the main second appeal and itted to withdraw the main second d for the reasons mentioned in the h is supported by an affidavit, the ring in the main appeal is preponed e main second appeal (RSA-1522- for the appellants submits that since, een the parties, the Court fee so tant second appeal be refunded to 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 ave the and ond the the ned nce, e so d to s. @ ed C so nd he ct he he ed an 4, ce IR RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6878-C RSA-1522- 9. Prakash @ S as under:- C-2026 in -2025 (O&M) -3- 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 “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 4 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. 5.09.2009. Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish RCR (Civil) 955]: it has been held 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 iciter 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. s. ish held 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. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6878-C RSA-1522- 10. (Civil) 851] C-2026 in -2025 (O&M) -4- Even if the plaintiff does not a acting suo moto invoking the p 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 appeals. 12. To provide added loco Section 89 of CPC in consonan had brought an amendment to inserting Section 16 therein. Th that the object behind insertion to encourage the litigants to resolution methodology for disputes and with a view to end 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. Sa 130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. 2009 decided on 15.9.2009; through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar decided on 09.09.2019; Naresh Harphool Singh & Ors., RSA. 10.09.2019; A. Sreeramaiah v Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374 Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honna Coop. Marketing Society & Or [Karnataka High Court]. 12. A perusal of the decisio clear that court fee can be ref ot apply for the same, the Court he provisions of Section 16 of the 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 eals. locomotion to the provisions of onance therewith, the Parliament t to the Court Fee Act, 1870 by n. There is no denying to the fact rtion of Section 16 to the Act was to adopt the alternative dispute or expeditious disposal of the end the litigation 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. Vs. Hukam Singh, CR. No.874 of 009; Harish Kumar (deceased) mar Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 2018 resh Kumar vs. M/s Jasmer Singh SA. No.1265 of 2019 decided on h vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & 374 [Karnataka High Court]; and nnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Ors., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 cisions mentioned above makes it refunded to the parties where a urt he nt, it in er of nt by ct as te he he gst or ct of R at he rt ed rts ct of ed b. of d) 18 gh on & nd ce 10 it a RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6878-C RSA-1522- 11. settled betw settled posit the Court fe applicant/app identification 12. 20.05.2026 rishu C-2026 in -2025 (O&M) -5- 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 between the parties. In view thereo position of law, the applicant/appell ourt fee as per Rules. Accordingly, appellants as per Rules and ication. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable s taken place even outside the ntion behind the provisions of law l so that the process of alternate aged.” ittedly, the matter already stands thereof and in view of the above appellants are entitled to refund of ngly, Court fee be refunded to the and against proper receipt and any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No he w te ands ove d of the and RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.