04.2026 Date o Gurmej Sing ej Singh & Anr. v. Neki Ram

M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocat dvocate for the applicant-appellants. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate ondent. for the non-applicant/responden NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-4764-C C-2026

1. Prayer in the present applicat 151 pplication filed under Section 151 CPC is for is for preponing the date of hearin hearing in the main appeal from

21.08.2026 t 2026 to some early date as the matter matter stands compromised between . the parties.

3. Notice of the application. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocat dvocate who is present in Court accepts notic s notice on behalf of the respondent ‘no ndent and submits that he has ‘no objection’ in ion’ in case, the present application is ion is allowed.

5. Heard. In view of the above and for d for the reasons mentioned in the application, ation, the same is allowed; and the m the main second appeal along 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 C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -2- all Civil Mi vil Miscellaneous applications is take 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 XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 1 al of ction 151 CPC, is for withdrawal of the main ap ain appeal in terms of settlement/co 025 ent/compromise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A xure A-1) arrived at between the partie parties.

2. Briefly stated, the defendant/ap ant/appellants are in second appeal against the j t the judgment of reversal dated 18. 18.01.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the y the respondent/plaintiff was allow allowed by the learned Additional District Judg t Judge, Sri Mutksar Sahib; and the nd the judgment and decree dated

30.04.2018 2018 passed by the learned Add Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), M on), Malout dismissing the suit of th t of the plaintiff for possession by way of speci specific performance of Agreement ment to Sell dated 03.08.2015, was set aside.

3. At the very outset, learned coun d counsel for the parties are ad idem that the enti e entire dispute which is the subject ubject matter of the present second appeal, stand stands settled between the parties b rties by way of compromise dated

23.07.2025 2025 (Annexure A-1).

4. As such, learned counsel for t l for the applicant/appellants prays that he may e may be permitted to withdraw the m s of the main second appeal in terms of the aforesaid resaid compromise arrived at between etween the parties.

5. Permitted to do so. RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -3-

6. The main second appeal (RSA l (RSA-887-2022) is dismissed as withdrawn, rawn, in terms of compromise dated 1) dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) effected betw d between the parties.

7. Needless to say that both the pa the parties shall abide by the terms and conditio nditions of the aforesaid compromise omise (Annexure A-1). CM-9035-C C-2025

8. Prayer in the present appellation f the ellation filed under Section 16 of the Court Fees A Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 15 151 CPC is for refund of Court fee.

9. Learned counsel for the appl applicant/appellants submits that since the m the matter stands compromised b ised between the parties as per compromise omise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure exure A-1), the court fee may be refunded.

11. Heard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in s. urt in the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Ashok Kuma umar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721] has held as under : “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. @ p Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ RCR (Civil) 955 (P&H), learned contended that Section 89 CPC C 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 4, another, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374, li Taluk Agricultural Produce IR ciety Ltd., Honnali, 2010(1) AIR s. 4 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. 5.09.2009. RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 C-2026 in 2022 (O&M) -4-

12. Further, in the matter of Pr Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ S @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR RCR (Civil) 955]: it has been held as under:- RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 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 - plaintiff, pursuant iciter posing for answer at this to whether the court fee should be 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 “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. The question simplicite 9. stage in this petition is, as to w refunded 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 In tune with the provis 10. endeavour is made by every Ci by one of the modes provid settlement between the partie arrived at in terms of Section rovisions of Section 89 of CPC, C, y Civil Court to decide the matter ovided in Section 89 CPC for arties. When such settlement is ion 89 CPC, provision of Section CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 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 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 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. nt. ot apply for the same, the Court he provisions of Section 16 of the icate authorizing the plaintiff to nt, , 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. 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.”

13. In Surender Kumar Vs. Hans R ans Raj Mandi [2021 (2) RCR (Civil) 851] 51]: it has been held as under:- The counsel for the appli 10. 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 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 vs. s relied upon Pradeep Sonawat vs. Pb. 130; Tarun Juneja & Ors. Vs. s. 9; of 2009 decided on 15.9.2009; through LRs vs. Pawan Kumar RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-4764-C RSA-887-20 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 A perusal of the decisio 12. 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 f 2018 decided on 09.09.2019; 9; s., er Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., decided on 10.09.2019; A. A. dian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) (5) a ka High Court]; and Kamalamma luk Agricultural Produce Coop. p. 10 rs., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 cisions mentioned above makes it a refunded to the parties where a s taken place even outside the ntion behind the provisions of law w l so that the process of alternate aged.”

14. In the present case, adm admittedly, compromise dated

23.07.2025 ( 2025 (Annexure A-1) has been entere In entered into between the parties. In view thereo thereof and in view of the above bove settled position of law, the applicant-ap appellants are entitled to refund o ules. fund of the Court fee as per Rules. Accordingly dingly, court fee be refunded to the to the applicant/appellants as per Rules.

16. CM-9035-C-2025 stands dispos disposed of, accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026

21.04.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.