Civil Revision No.874 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.874 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 15.09.2009 Tarun Juneja and others ......petitioners VERSUS Hukam Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for Mr.Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon whereby it refused to refund the court fee on account of the fact that the compromise was not effected in Lok Adalat. Heard. On perusal of the order dated 13.12.2008, it transpires that there was a dispute between the parties, which was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice that the zimni orders dated 30.04.2008 and 14.05.2008, which clearly reveal that on persuasion of the Lok Adalat, the parties opted to make efforts for the compromise. The said orders are reproduced as under:- “30.04.2008 According to both the counsel for parties, there are chances of compromise, so matter be taken up on 14.05.2008 for compromise. 14.05.2008 According to counsel for defendant, plaintiff had agreed with the defendant to come present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon, on 13.05.2008 for execution and registration of sale deed but they did not turn up and according to counsel for Civil Revision No.874 of 2009(O&M) 2 plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are evading to get the sale deed executed and registered. So, plaintiffs are directed to appear in person on 22.05.2008.” Thereafter the petitioner No.1 and the respondent appeared before the Lok Adalat on 30.08.2008 and stated that they have compromised the matter and further prayed that Court fee of Rs.5,04,400/- which was paid on the plaint, be refunded. Any way, the Court did not accept the plea of the petitioner and declined to refund the Court fee with the observations that since the matter has not been compromised in the Lok Adalat, therefore, the Court fee could not be refunded. Heard. There is no denying a fact that the matter which was under adjudication before a Civil Court was referred to one of the agencies i.e. Lok Adalat as provided under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Undisputedly, on account of persuasion of the Lok Adalat the sale deed was agreed to be got registered for which the parties were directed to appear before the Sub-Registrar. Notwithstanding the fact that the parties could not appear on the given date but they appeared on the extended date and sale deed was executed and lastly they while appearing before the Lok Adalat stated that they have compromised the matter. Now coming to the relevant section 16 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, which has been inserted by Section 46 of the Act of 1999, reads as under:- “Where the Court refers the parties to the suit any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5of 1908), the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint.” Similarly, Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act which relates to the refund of the Court fee reads as under:- “Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such cases shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act 1870 (7 of Civil Revision No.874 of 2009(O&M) 3 1870). On conjoint reading of the Act, it may be observed that the intention of the legislature was to extend a twin relief to the parties i.e. to get the matter settled and in case it is settled, to refund the Court fee as affixed by the plaintiff on the plaint. The motive behind insertion of this provision was to encourage the settlement of disputes with the media of Lok Adalat. The words as “if the compromise or settlement is arrived at by a Lok Adalat” should not be construed so strictly as to keep those compromises within the purview which may have been effected with the intervention and under the seal of the Lok Adalat or Lok Adalat was to pass a specific order that the compromise was arrived at by it. When the matter is received by the Lok Adalat, it undergoes a continuous process of efforts before it reaches the climax and receives the seal of the Court and it also depends upon the nature of the case and the manner in which the compromise is effected. But before the Court passes the order with regard to refund the Court fee, it should see if the case was disposed of on the basis of statement of the parties whatsoever such statements may be that the matter has been settled and an order to the effect that matter stands compromised or settled, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction to refund the Court fee. In the instant case parties on persuasion under the directions of the Court compromised and got the sale deeds executed, therefore, the petitioners were certainly entitled to have the refund of Court fee. The impugned order being non-speaking order cannot be approved and needs reconsideration. Consequently, the case is remitted back to the Lok Adalat to decide the application for refund of Court fee while taking all the facts and circumstances and points raised by the counsel for the parties. 15.09.2009 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge