CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 IN THE HIG 138 Gurmej Sing Neki Ram CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-4764-C 1. CPC is for 21.08.2026 t the parties. 2. 3. accepts notic objection’ in 4. 5. application, C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA


CM RSA Date o ej Singh and another Versus M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocat Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the non-applicant/responden 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 . Notice of the application. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocat s notice on behalf of the respondent ion’ in case, the present application is Heard. In view of the above and for ation, the same is allowed; and the m ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM 4764-C-2026 in RSA-887-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 .… Appellants .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA dvocate for the applicant-appellants. ocate ondent. pplication filed under Section 151 hearing in the main appeal from matter stands compromised between dvocate who is present in Court ndent and submits that he has ‘no ion is allowed. d for the reasons mentioned in the the main second appeal along with 151 rom een ourt ‘no the with RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 all Civil Mi itself. CM-9034-C 1. Order XXIII the main ap (Annexure A 2. against the j filed by the District Judg 30.04.2018 Division), M way of speci set aside. 3. that the enti appeal, stand 23.07.2025 4. that he may the aforesaid 5. C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -2- vil Miscellaneous applications is take C-2025 in/and RSA-887-2022 Prayer in the application (CM XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 1 ain appeal in terms of settlement/co xure A-1) arrived at between the partie Briefly stated, the defendant/ap t the judgment of reversal dated 18. y the respondent/plaintiff was allow t Judge, Sri Mutksar Sahib; and the 2018 passed by the learned Add on), Malout dismissing the suit of th specific performance of Agreement At the very outset, learned coun e entire dispute which is the subject stands settled between the parties b 2025 (Annexure A-1). As such, learned counsel for t e may be permitted to withdraw the m resaid compromise arrived at between Permitted to do so. is taken up for final hearing today CM-9034-C-2025) filed under ction 151 CPC, is for withdrawal of ent/compromise dated 23.07.2025 parties. ant/appellants are in second appeal 18.01.2022, whereby the appeal allowed by the learned Additional nd the judgment and decree dated Additional Civil Judge (Senior t of the plaintiff for possession by ment to Sell dated 03.08.2015, was d counsel for the parties are ad idem ubject matter of the present second rties by way of compromise dated l for the applicant/appellants prays the main second appeal in terms of etween the parties. day nder al of 025 peal peal onal ated nior by was ond ated rays s of RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 6. withdrawn, effected betw 7. and conditio CM-9035-C 8. Court Fees A fee. 9. since the m compromise refunded. 10. 11. Ashok Kuma C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -3- The main second appeal (RSA rawn, in terms of compromise dated d between the parties. Needless to say that both the pa nditions of the aforesaid compromise C-2025 Prayer in the present appellation Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 15 Learned counsel for the appl the matter stands compromised b omise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure 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. l (RSA-887-2022) is dismissed as dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) the parties shall abide by the terms omise (Annexure A-1). ellation filed under Section 16 of the 151 CPC is for refund of Court applicant/appellants submits that ised between the parties as per exure A-1), the court fee may be 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 ions 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. as 1) rms f the ourt that per be s. @ ed C so nd he ct he he ed an 4, ce IR s. RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 12. Prakash @ S as under:- C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -4- 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 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 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 13. (Civil) 851] C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -5- 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 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 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 14. 23.07.2025 ( view thereo applicant-ap Accordingly Rules. 15. 16. 21.04.2026 rishu C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -6- Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 20 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, adm 2025 (Annexure A-1) has been entere thereof and in view of the above appellants are entitled to refund o dingly, court fee be refunded to the CM-9035-C-2025 stands dispos Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable f 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; 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.” admittedly, compromise dated entered into between the parties. In bove settled position of law, the fund of the Court fee as per Rules. to the applicant/appellants as per disposed of, accordingly. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No 9; s., A. (5) a p. 10 it a he w te ated In the ules. per RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.