[2026:RJ-JP:13406] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 925/2025 Subhash Chand Patni S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Patni, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 303, S.D.C. Ashok Millborne, D-38, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus Vallabhdas Katta S/o Late Shri Radha Krishan Katta, R/o D- 258/b, Devi Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal Ms. Anjali Sharma Ms. Ritu Jindal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 30/03/2026 1. The present first appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Civil Suit No.38/2020 (CIS No.492/2020) titled as 'Vallabhdas Katta vs. Subhash Chand Patni', whereby the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.6,97,291/- (along with interest thereon), was decreed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the present appeal, with the intervention and mutual advertance, in order to bring end to the prolonged litigation, the parties have amicably settled their dispute finally and in terms thereof, the appellant, instead of making payment in terms of the decree, has given immovable property i.e. Plot No. B-82 situated at Murtikala Vihar, (Niji Khatirdari Scheme), Village Naradpura, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur to the respondent who has [2026:RJ-JP:13406] (2 of 3) [CFA-925/2025] accepted the same in full and final satisfaction of the entire decretal amount and no further amount remains due. He therefore prays that the compromise dated 28.03.2026 may be taken on record; the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025 may be set aside and the Court fee so paid in the present first appeal i.e. Rs.45,233/- may kindly be refunded to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the aforesaid proposition and submits that in case any title dispute arises with regard to the property (Plot No. B-82) so given in lieu of the decretal amount as granted in the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiff/respondent may kindly be granted liberty to move an application for recalling of this order. He further submits that the Court fee so paid in the suit may also be refunded to the plaintiff/respondent. 4. In order to buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment passed in the matter of Harish Madhan vs. Kshema Power & Ors.1 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Civil Suit No.38/2020 (CIS No.492/2020) is modified accordingly i.e. in lieu of the decretal amount of Rs.6,97,291/-, the plaintiff/respondent has received compensation in terms of 1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13265/2025 [2026:RJ-JP:13406] (3 of 3) [CFA-925/2025] Plot No. B-82 situated at Murtikala Vihar, (Niji Khatirdari Scheme), Village Naradpura, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. 7. Since the appellant is entitled for the refund of the Court fees Rs.45,233/- in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C. Subramaniam & Ors.2, therefore, the Registry is directed to prepare a certificate regarding the refund of the Court fees of Rs.45,233/- in favour of the appellant. 8. However, prayer for refund of Court fee to the plaintiff/respondent paid in the Civil Suit is declined as the same is contrary to the relevant rules. 9. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in the matter of Harish Madhan (supra) is concerned, even though there is no quarrel on the legal principle laid down therein, the issue involved in the said case stands on a different footing; therefore, the same is distinguishable on facts. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present civil first appeal stands disposed of in view of the compromise dated 28.03.2026. 11. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 12. However, it is made clear that the respondent shall be at liberty to move an application for recalling of this order, if any cause of action still survives. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-155 2 (2021) 3 SCC 560