® HK3HCOURTOFCNHATTIS8ARHATBILASPUR DB: ApDellantf Petttioner Respondents Hon'bleShriDhirendraMishra&?' Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. .JJ. % Writ Appeal (PR1 No. 3430 of 2010 ^ft ?^^/(6' ' -• •••--1 - ?-;^ /tehofc Kuraar Jain,®Son ofl^te Vimal Chand d^,^ is^ %»utW^^^B^^ He»a-h4oti Lme, R^ ''Rajnandgaon'- -•''''l'°:''- '"'•-•"$;; '•'.1 :-!"i-'.; .IVs. .^-. ..—,... . 1. Siate <rf ChhatBsgartt , , ,,^ :;;'7hrough';;The'<3ht^Sj|e|S^g:fi£.,,,:,^ MantralayarDX^;Bha"wany€&tpU(<^©.©.) 2. Dinesh Kumar Son of Late Utoia ?Lal Dewanga.aged about36years. 3. Chandra Kishore, Son of La(e Uttam Lal D®frangan,agedabout32years;^ Both R/o. DurgaChowk.Town anAENstetet- Rajnandgapn g 4. District EducaUon Officer, Nara^npur Present: Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for ttie appellant. ^ Shri G.D.Waswani, GcNt.^idMocatefwtft^SteiBS. ORALORDER . ..- ;-. . :. . -—'1 (Passedon '[QSSSQ^O) s PerDhirwKlra Mi^ua. J 1. Appellant filed dvll suit tefore the Trial Court. On applicaUon of partjes to the cMI su , the matter was referred bythetrialCourttothsLok Adalatfor amicable settlennent. However;- e setHement could not baarrived at, as the parties to the suit remained absent before ttie l.okAdalat. Thematter .^" was retumed back to the trial Court. 2. The tnal Court, after recording the evidence of the respecBve parties on their application for passing compromise decree, a compren'tise decree /^-^ ^.^K^ sS.f1' was passed. The appellantfplaintlff filed an application under Section 89 of the Code of CMI Procedure, for refund of court fees and the same was rejected by the trial Court. The writ petition filed by ttie petitioner has been further dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Shri Sharma, leamed couflsel for the appellant, submits that the compromise decree has been passed by the trial Court on the basis of mufaial settlement between the partles. The trial Court ought to have agaln referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, as their appllcaUon ft>r compromis® was pending. However, ttie trial Court has passed compromise deeree without referring it to the Lok Adalat and their applteation for reftind of court fees under Section 89 of the CPC has been rejected and Uie order of trial Court has been farther afflrmed by the impugned order. 4. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the order of learned SingleJudge. 5. Learned Single Judge, after elaborately discussing the proceedings before the trial Court, reached to the conclusiqn thaMhere isflo lll^ality or jurisdicUonal error committed by<tte (eamed District Judge warranfing interference in exercise of tts supervisory jurisdicUon under Artlde 22'?" of the Constitution of India. 6. We are in agreement w'rth the reasons assigned by the teamed Single Judge for dismissing thewrit petition, we find nosubstance in ttiisappeat and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view ofthe above, I.A. No. 1S010 isalso dismissed. Sd/- DfflRENDRA MISHRA Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ';a ;'caSiSS sSiS^x-eaKSvsass