VIPIN LUTHRA AND ANR. Vs. VIKRAM KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs who are husband and wife have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 26.09.2009 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurgaon thereby declining prayer of the Plaintiffs for refund of the court fee paid in the suit, in view of the compromise effected between the parties, pursuant where to the Plaintiffs withdrew the suit. Since there was no dispute between the parties on this aspect and since matter of refund of Court fee was involved, notice of revision petition was issued to State of Haryana.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that in view of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870 (in short, the Act), the Petitioners are entitled to refund of Court fee, irrespective of whether the parties effected-settlement within the purview of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short Code of Civil Procedure) or effected cut of Court settlement without intervention of the Court or any mode referred to in Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Division Pench judgment of Karnataka High Court in A. Sreeramaiah v. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore and Anr,2007 2 CCC 695 and Single Bench judgment of the said High Court in Kamalamma and Ors. v. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, Honnali and Ors., 2010 1 AIRKarR 279