Gurmej Singh and Another Vs Neki Ram

Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151 CPC is f o r preponing the date of hea r ing in the main appeal from 21.08.202 6 to some early date as the matt e r stands compromised between

¶14

the parties.

¶15

Notice of the application.

¶16

Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advo c ate who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the responde n t and submits that he has ‘no objection’ i n case, the present application is allowed.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

In view of the above and fo r the reasons mentioned in the applicatio n , the same is allowed; and the m ain second appeal along with

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶20

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

¶21

all Civil M iscellaneous applications is ta k en up for final hearing today itself.

¶22

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

¶23

Prayer in the application ( C M-9034-C-2025) filed under Order XX I II Rule 3 CPC read with Sectio n 151 CPC, is for withdrawal of the main a ppeal in terms of settlement / compromise dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) arrived at between the par t ies. 2. Briefly stated, the defendant/ a ppellants are in second appeal against th e judgment of reversal dated 1 8 .01.2022, whereby the appeal filed by t h e respondent/plaintiff was allo w ed by the learned Additional District J u dge, Sri Mutksar Sahib; and t h e judgment and decree dated 30.04.201 8 passed by the learned A d ditional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of sp e cific performance of Agreeme n t to Sell dated 03.08.2015, was set aside.

¶24

At the very outset, learned co u nsel for the parties are ad idem that the e n tire dispute which is the subje c t matter of the present second appeal, st a nds settled between the partie s by way of compromise dated 23.07.202 5 (Annexure A-1).

¶25

As such, learned counsel fo r the applicant/appellants prays that he ma y be permitted to withdraw the m ain second appeal in terms of the afores a id compromise arrived at betwe e n the parties.

¶26

Permitted to do so.

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

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

¶29

-3-

¶30

The main second appeal (R S A-887-2022) is dismissed as withdrawn, in terms of compromise dat e d 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) effected b e tween the parties.

¶31

Needless to say that both the p arties shall abide by the terms and condit i ons of the aforesaid compromis e (Annexure A-1).

¶32

CM-9035-C-2025

¶33

Prayer in the present appellati o n filed under Section 16 of the Court Fee s Act, 1870 read with Section 151 CPC is for refund of Court fee.

¶34

Learned counsel for the ap p licant/appellants submits that since the matter stands compromised between the parties as per compromi s e dated 23.07.2025 (Annexur e A-1), the court fee may be refunded.

¶35

Heard.

¶36

The Hon’ble Supreme Court i n the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar [2019 (1) Law Herald 721] has held as under :

¶37

“7. By referring to Pradeep S onawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra, 2015(1) R CR (Civil) 955 (P&H), learned counsel for the appellant c o ntended that Section 89 CPC would apply even in cases of c ounter claims in suits and also in appeals, counter objecti o ns and counter appeals and benefit of Section 16 of the C o urt Fee Act is available to the appellant in appeal in case o f settlement irrespective of fact whether it was before the L ok Adalat or otherwise. The refund of Court fee cannot b e denied merely because the matter has not been settled b efore the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel also relied upon A. Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore and an o ther, 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374, Kamalamma Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Soci e ty Ltd., Honnali, 2010(1) AIR Kar R 279 and CR No.874 of 2009 titled Tarun Juneja Vs. Hukam Singh decided on 15.0 9 .2009.

¶38

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶39

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

¶40

-4-

¶41

Further, in the matter of Pradeep Sonawat Vs. Satish Prakash @ Satish Chandra [2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 955]: it has been held

¶42

as under:-

¶43

“7. Conjoint reading of Se c tion 16 of the Act with Section 89 of CPC leaves no doubt th a t endeavor of the legislature is for settlement of cases by a lternative disputes settlement mechanism. Be it Lok Adala t or out of Court settlement or Arbitration or Conciliation o r Mediation, effort always is to end the litigation once for a l l times to come. Settlement in terms of Section 89 CPC r e sults in complete end to the litigation. Resort to appeal or revision statutorily is out of the legal arena. Merely because the matter for settlement was not taken up in daily Lok Ada l at, which under the aegis of the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, is held every day in each Court in the State aft e r Court hours, should not be taken to the prejudice of the p e titioner-plaintiff. 8. Concept of daily Lo k Adalat is not alien to the alternative dispute redressal m achinery. Daily Lok adalats in the State of Haryana are held in all the districts. Every Court of the Sessions Division, aft e r court hours, gets converted into a daily Lok Adalat and j u dicial officers hold sittings for this, depending upon the w orkload of cases coming for settlement every day in each Court. This way, here are as many daily Lok Adalats as a r e the number of Courts in that Sessions Division.

¶44

9. The question simplici t er posing for answer at this stage in this petition is, as to w hether the court fee should be refunded to the petitioner - plaintiff, pursuant to the settlement arrived at betwee n the parties, which was duly recorded by the Court and w as accepted or 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, th e Court had passed the decree dated 11.12.2012 [Annexur e P/3] in terms of the said compromise

¶45

10. In tune with the provisions of Section 89 of CPC, endeavour is made by every C ivil Court to decide the matter by one of the modes prov i ded in Section 89 CPC for settlement between the par t ies. When such settlement is arrived at in terms of Sectio n 89 CPC, provision of Section

¶46

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶47

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

¶48

-5-

¶49

16 of the Act, which is benefi c ial and benevolent provision in its domain and content need s to be invoked and the Court concerned is also required t o inform the plaintiff that he is entitled to get back the court f ee affixed by him on the plaint. Even if the plaintiff does not apply for the same, the Court acting suo moto invoking the p rovisions of Section 16 of the Act, should issue a certific a te authorizing the plaintiff to receive back the court fee, p aid in respect of such plaint, from the Collector.

¶50

11. Though, this matter is not in issue here, even then it may be mentioned that this p rovision would apply even in cases of counter claims in s u its as also in appeals, counter objections and counter ap p eals. 12. To provide added locomotion to the provisio n s 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 den y ing to the 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 d isposal of the disputes and with a view to end the litigation fo r ever. xxx xxx xxx

¶51

16. Going a step further , it is felt that whether the compromise is with the pers u asion of the Court or amongst the parties by themselves in terms of Section 89 CPC or otherwise, invocation of pro v ision of Section 16 of the Act should be made in all cases so that settlements by way o f alternative dispute resolution m echanism are encouraged.”

¶52

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

¶53

(Civil) 851]: it has been held as under: -

¶54

10. The counsel for the ap p licant-appellant contended that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, in the light of the principles enshri n ed in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 90 CPC, the parties are entitled to be refunded the court fe e s paid by them in the Courts below as well as this Hon'bl e Court irrespective of the fact that the settlement was reac h ed without the intervention o f the Court and outside C o urt. 11. In support of his submission, the counsel has r e lied upon Pradeep 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) t h rough LRs vs. Pawan Kumar

¶55

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶56

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

¶57

-6-

¶58

Sehgal, RSA. No.3645 of 2 018 decided on 09.09.2019; Naresh Kumar vs. M/s Jasme r Singh Harphool Singh & Ors., RSA. No.1265 of 2019 d ecided on 10.09.2019; A. Sreeramaiah vs. South Indi a n Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka H igh Court]; and Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Marketing Society & Ors., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 [Karnataka High Court].11

¶59

12. A perusal of the decis i ons mentioned above makes it clear that court fee can be r e funded to the parties where a compromise/settlement has t aken place even outside the Court. This is also the intenti o n behind the provisions of law relied upon by the counsel s o that the process of alternate dispute resolution is encoura g ed.”

¶60

In the present case, ad m ittedly, compromise dated

¶61

23.07.202 5 (Annexure A-1) has been ente r ed into between the parties. In view ther e of and in view of the abov e settled position of law, the applicant- a ppellants are entitled to refund of the Court fee as per Rules. According l y, court fee be refunded to t he applicant/appellants as per Rules.

¶62

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

¶63

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶64

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶65

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Gurmej Singh and Another v. Neki Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmej Singh and Another v. Neki Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Kumar and Another Vs Krishan Kumar and Others

Bhagwan Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh and Others

Nasib Singh and Ors. Vs Anurag Rastogi and Ors.

Sukhwinderpal Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur and Others

Santosh Devi and Anr. Vs Chetan Singh and Ors.

Sudesh Kumari and Anr. Vs Ajit Singh and Others