[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurmej Singh And Another vs Neki Ram on 21 April, 2026

                     CM-4764-C
                             C-2026 in
                     RSA-887-2022
                             2022 (O&M)                           -1-


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                     138                                          CM 4764-C-2026 in
                                                                  RSA
                                                                  RSA-887-2022 (O&M)

                                                                  Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

                     Gurmej Singh and another                            .... Appellants


                                                  Versus

                     Neki Ram                                            .... Respondent



                     CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

                     Present: -      Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for the applicant-appellants.

                                     Mr. Mukesh Yadav,, Advocate
                                     for the non-applicant/respondent.
                                                 applicant/respondent.

                     NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-4764-C C-2026

1. Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151

CPC is for preponing the date of hearing in the main appeal from

21.08.2026 to some early date as the matter stands compromised between

the parties..

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. Mukesh Yadav,, Advocate who is present in Court

accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has 'no

objection' in case, the present application is allowed.

4. Heard.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned in the

application, the same is allowed; and the main second appeal along with

CM-4764-C C-2026 in RSA-887-2022 2022 (O&M) -2-

all Civil Miscellaneous applications is taken up for final hearing today

itself.

CM-9034-C C-2025 in/and RSA-887-2022

1. Prayer in the application (CM CM-9034-C-2025) filed under

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, is for withdrawal of

the main appeal in terms of settlement/compromise dated 23.07.2025

(Annexure A-1) A 1) arrived at between the parties.

2. Briefly stated, ed, the defendant/appellants are in second appeal

against the judgment of reversal dated 18.01.2022, whereby the appeal

filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Sri Mutksar Sahib;

Sahib; and the judgment and decree dated

30.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Malout dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession by

way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 03.08.2015, was

set aside.

3. At the very outset, learned earned counsel for the parties are ad idem

that the entire dispute which is the subject matter of the present second

appeal, stands stand settled between the parties by way of compromise dated

23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1).

4. As such, learned earned counsel for the applicant/appellants prays

that he may be permitted to withdraw the main second appeal in terms of

the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Permitted to do so.










                      CM-4764-C
                             C-2026 in
                     RSA-887-2022
                             2022 (O&M)                     -3-


                     6.           The main second appeal (RSA
                                                         (RSA-887-2022) is dismissed as

withdrawn, in terms of compromise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1)

effected between the parties.

7. Needless eedless to say that both the parties shall abide by the terms

and conditions of the aforesaid compromise (Annexure A-1).

CM-9035-C C-2025

8. Prayer in the present appellation filed under Section 16 of the

Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 151 CPC is for refund of Court

fee.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellants submits that

since the matter stands compromised between the parties as per

compromise dated 23.07.20255 (Annexure A A-1),, the court fee may be

refunded.

10. Heard.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Singh Vs.

Ashok Kumar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721] has held as under :

"7. By referring to Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 955 (P&H), learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 89 CPC would apply even in cases of counter claims in suits and also in appeals, counter objections ions and counter appeals and benefit of Section 16 of the Court Fee Act is available to the appellant in appeal in case of settlement irrespective of fact whether it was before the Lok Adalat or otherwise. The refund of Court fee cannot be denied merely be because cause the matter has not been settled before the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel also relied upon A. Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore and another, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374, Kamalamma Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing arketing Society Ltd., Honnali, 2010(1) AIR Kar R 279 and CR No.874 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. Hukam Singh decided on 15.09.2009.








                      CM-4764-C
                             C-2026 in
                     RSA-887-2022
                             2022 (O&M)                       -4-

12. Further, in the matter of Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish

955]: it has been Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 955] en held

as under:-

"7. Conjoint reading of Section 16 of the Act with Section 89 of CPC leaves no doubt that endeavor of the legislature is for settlement of cases by alternative disputes settlement mechanism. Be it Lok Adalat or out of Court settlement or Arbitration or Conciliation ation or Mediation, effort always is to end the litigation once for all times to come. Settlement in terms of Section 89 CPC results in complete end to the litigation. Resort to appeal or revision statutorily is out of the legal arena. Merely because the m matter atter for settlement was not taken up in daily Lok Adalat, which under the aegis of the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, is held every day in each Court in the State after Court hours, should not be taken to the prejudice of the petitioner petitioner-plaintiff.

8. Concept of daily Lok Adalat is not alien to the alternative dispute redressal machinery. Daily Lok adalats in the State of Haryana are held in all the districts. Every Court of the Sessions Division, after court hours, gets converted into a daily Lok Adalat and judicial officers hold sittings for this, depending upon the workload of cases coming for settlement every day in each Court. This way, here are as many daily Lok Adalats as are the number of Courts in that Sessions Division.

9. The question simpliciter posing for answer at this stage in this petition is, as to whether the court fee should be refunded to the petitioner-- plaintiff, pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, which was duly recorded by the Court and was accepted oorr not? Judgment dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure P/3] clearly reveals that the statement of the parties as also compromise was recorded by the Court and forms part of the record. After having been acted upon by the parties, the Court had passed the decree dated 11.12.2012 [Annexure P/3] in terms of the said compromise

10. In tune with the provisions of Section 89 of CPC, endeavour is made by every Civil Court to decide the matter by one of the modes provided in Section 89 CPC for settlement between the parties. W When hen such settlement is arrived at in terms of Section 89 CPC, provision of Section

CM-4764-C C-2026 in RSA-887-2022 2022 (O&M) -5-

16 of the Act, which is beneficial and benevolent provision in its domain and content needs to be invoked and the Court concerned is also required to inform the plaintiff th that at he is entitled to get back the court fee affixed by him on the plaint. Even if the plaintiff does not apply for the same, the Court acting suo moto invoking the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, should issue a certificate authorizing the plaintiff to receive back the court fee, paid in respect of such plaint, from the Collector.

11. Though, this matter is not in issue here, even then it may be mentioned that this provision would apply even in cases of counter claims in suits as also in appeals, countcounter er objections and counter appeals. 12. To provide added locomotion to the provisions of Section 89 of CPC in consonance therewith, the Parliament had brought an amendment to the Court Fee Act, 1870 by inserting Section 16 therein. There is no denying to th thee fact that the object behind insertion of Section 16 to the Act was to encourage the litigants to adopt the alternative dispute resolution methodology for expeditious disposal of the disputes and with a view to end the litigation forever.

xxx xxx xxx

16. Going a step further, it is felt that whether the compromise is with the persuasion of the Court or amongst the parties by themselves in terms of Section 89 CPC or otherwise, invocation of provision of Section 16 of the Act should be made in all cases so that settlements by way of alternative dispute resolution mechanism are encouraged."

13. In Surender Kumar Vs. Hans Raj Mandi [2021 (2) RCR

851] it has been held as under:-

(Civil) 851]:

10. The counsel for the applicant applicant-appellant appellant contended that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, in the light of the principles enshrined in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 90 CPC, the parties are entitled to be refunded thee court fees paid by them in the Courts below as well as this Hon'ble Court irrespective of the fact that the settlement was reached without the intervention of the Court and outside Court. 11. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon Prad Pradeep eep Sonawat vs. Satish Prakash, AIR 2015 Pb. 130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. Hukam Singh, CR. No.874 of 2009 decided on 15.9.2009;

Harish Kumar (deceased) through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar

CM-4764-C C-2026 in RSA-887-2022 2022 (O&M) -6-

Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; Naresh Kumar vs. M/s Jasmer mer Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., RSA. No.1265 of 2019 decided on 10.09.2019; A. Sreeramaiah vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka High Court]; and Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Marketing Society ty & Ors., 2009(33) RCR (Civ (Civil) il) 110 [Karnataka High Court].11

12. A perusal of the decisions mentioned above makes it clear that court fee can be refunded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has taken place even outside the Court. This is also the he intention behind the provisions of law relied upon by the counsel so that the process of alternate dispute resolution is encouraged."

14. In the present case, admittedly, compromise dated

23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) A has been entered into between the parties. In

view thereof and in view of the above settled position of law, the

applicant-appellants appellants are entitled to refund of the Court ourt fee as per Rules.

Accordingly, court fee be refunded to the applicant/appellants as per

Rules.

15. CM-9035-C-2025 stands disposed of of, accordingly.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



                     21.04.2026                                           ( NIDHI GUPTA )
                     rishu                                                    JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No