CM-6875-77 RSA-206-20 IN THE HIG 130-A Kulwinder S Cheena Sing CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-6875-C CPC is for 30.07.2026 the parties. supported b appeal along taken up for CM-6876-C 1. Order XXIII the main ap agreed amou Judgment-de 77-64-C-2026 in 2024 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA


CM N RSA Date o nder Singh Versus a Singh deceased through LRs. M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advoca I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) C-2026 Prayer in the present applicat is for preponing the date of hearin 2026 to some early date as the matter . Heard. For the reasons mentioned i rted by an affidavit, the same is all along with other accompanying Civil up for final hearing today itself. C-2026 in/and RSA-206-2024 Prayer in the application (CM XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 1 ain appeal as, the matter stands sett amount of ₹3,00,000/- has been pai debtor to the respondent/plaintiff ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 6875-77-C2026 in RSA-206-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 .… Appellant .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA te for dvocate for the applicant-appellant. pplication filed under Section 151 hearing in the main appeal from matter stands compromised between ned in the application which is allowed; and the main second Civil Miscellaneous applications is CM-6876-C-2026) filed under ction 151 CPC, is for withdrawal of ds settled between the parties and en paid by the applicant/appellant/ laintiff/Decree-holder. Accordingly, 151 rom een is ond is nder al of and lant/ gly, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6875-77 RSA-206-20 the Executio being fully s by the learne 2. against the whereby the decreed. 3. that she may matter stand ₹3,00,000/- DH. 4. the main sec CM-6877-C 5. Court Fees A 6. since the ma may be refun 7. 8. Ashok Kuma 77-64-C-2026 in 2024 (O&M) -2- ecution Petition No. EXE-66-2026 fully satisfied vide order dated 27.03. learned Executing Court, Barnala. Briefly stated, the defendant/a t the concurrent findings rendered by the suit for recovery filed by At the very outset, learned cou e may be permitted to withdraw the stands settled between the parties; - has already been paid by the ap In view of the above, the presen in second appeal (RSA-206-2024) is C-2026 Prayer in the present appellation Fees Act, 1870 is for refund of Court f Learned counsel for the app the matter stands compromised betw e refunded. 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 2026, was dismissed as withdrawn 27.03.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed dant/appellant is in second appeal ered by both the District Courts, d by the respondent-plaintiff was d counsel for the appellant submits w the present second appeal as the arties; and the agreed amount of the appellant-JD to the respondent- present application is allowed; and ) is dismissed as withdrawn. ellation filed under Section 16 of the ourt fee. applicant/appellant submits that between the parties, the court fee 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 ssed peal urts, was mits the t of and f the that fee s. @ ed C so nd RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6875-77 RSA-206-20 9. Prakash @ S as under:- 77-64-C-2026 in 2024 (O&M) -3- 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 “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 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 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 he ct he he ed an 4, ce IR 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6875-77 RSA-206-20 10. (Civil) 851] 77-64-C-2026 in 2024 (O&M) -4- 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 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 Cou submission, the counsel has reli Satish Prakash, AIR 2015 Pb. 1 Hukam Singh, CR. No.874 of Harish Kumar (deceased) thro Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 20 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 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 Court. 11. In support of his s relied upon Pradeep Sonawat vs. Pb. 130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. of 2009 decided on 15.9.2009; through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar f 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; C, ter or is on in urt is nt. urt he nt, it in er ed in an on ect ge on ith he gst or ct of R at he rt ed rts ct of his vs. s. 9; ar 9; RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-6875-77 RSA-206-20 11. settled betw settled positi Court fee a applicant/app 12. 13. 18.05.2026 rishu 77-64-C-2026 in 2024 (O&M) -5- Naresh Kumar vs. M/s Jasmer S RSA. No.1265 of 2019 de Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka H & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk 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 between the parties. In view thereo position of law, the applicant-appella fee as per Rules. Accordingly, co appellants as per Rules. CM-6877-C-2026 stands dispos Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable er Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., decided on 10.09.2019; A. dian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) ka High Court]; and Kamalamma luk Agricultural Produce Coop. 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.” ittedly, the matter already stands thereof and in view of the above appellant is entitled to refund of the ly, court fee be refunded to the disposed of, accordingly. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No s., A. (5) a p. 10 it a he w te ands ove f the the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.