R. S. A. No. 2624 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2624 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 31, 2010 Smt. Chandero .... Appellant Vs. Suba Ram .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Appellant has moved C. M. No. 4145-C of 2010 under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for permission to withdraw the appeal and for refund of court fee, in view of compromise (Annexure A-1) effected between the parties, pursuant whereto the execution filed by the respondent-decree holder has been disposed of as fully satisfied vide order Annexure A-2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, in view of compromise, court fee paid on the appeal is liable to be refunded to the appellant. The contention is completely devoid of merit because Section 16 of the Court Fees Act refers to a case, where the suit is referred by the Court to any one of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 CPC. In that event, the plaintiff is entitled to certificate for refund of court fee. In the instant R. S. A. No. 2624 of 2009 (O&M) 2 case, however, admittedly the suit or appeal was not referred by the Court to any mode of settlement mentioned in Section 89 CPC and consequently, question of refund of court fee under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, does not arise. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. However, the said provision does not provide for refund of court fee in the eventuality of compromise between the parties. It is thus apparent that the appellant is not entitled to refund of court fee. However, C. M. No. 4145-C of 2010 is allowed to the extent of permitting the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. March 31, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE