N.K. Mody, J:

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-11 passed by Additional Judge (Fast Tract) to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Ujjain whereby review application filed by petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code for reviewing the order dated 30-8-10 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/09 was dismissed, present petition has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent, which was numbered as Civil Suit No. 5-A/09, wherein an application for compromise was filed by the parties under Order 23 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code on 13-8-10 with a request through their respective advocates to place the matter before the Lok Adalat. Vide order dated 13-8-10, learned Court below directed that the case be placed before the Lok Adalat and the case was adjourned for 28-8-10. It appears that on 28-8-10, Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, it was directed that the case be laced for orders on 30-8-10. On 30-8-10, learned Court below dismissed the suit in terms of compromise with further direction that parties shall bear their own cost. Since petitioner was not satisfied with the order as there was no direction regarding refund of Court-fee, therefore, review application was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the impugned order, against which present petition has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that it was one of the term of compromise that the Court fee amounting to Rs. 36,000/- approximately which was paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioners. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Section 16 of Court Fees Act, which reads as under : -

"Refund of fee.- Whether the Court refers the parties to the suit to any of the mode of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 (5 of 1908) the plaintiff shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorising him to receive back from the Collector, the full amount of the fee paid in respect of such plaint."

4. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Vallabh Das Gupta Vs. Geeta Bai, 2004(3) M.P.H.T. 89 (DB) = 2004 (3) MPLJ 37, wherein Divisional Bench of this Court held that in case of settlement of dispute in an appeal under the provisions of Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code appellant is entitled for refund of Court fees. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Keshrimal Vs. Dhanraj, 2010 (III) MPWN 54, wherein this Court observed that the reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat would cause unnecessary delay for disposal of appeal, therefore, appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with further direction that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 16 of Court Fees Act, the Court fee paid by the appellant on the appeal shall be refunded as per the procedure contained in Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. Learned Counsel further submits that there was no justification on the part of learned Court below in deciding the matter in regular course, while there was specific order on 13-8-10 for placing the matter before Lok Adalat. It is submitted that even if the matter was decided by the learned Court below, then too, since the matter was settled between the parties in compromise, therefore, there was no justification in not passing the order of refund of Court-fee. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order dated 15-3-11 be set aside and the order dated 30-8-10 whereby it has been directed that expenses shall be borne by the parties be modified.

5. Since the matter relates to refund of Court-fee, therefore, Smt. Rashmi Pandit, Dy. GA was requested to submit on behalf of State. Learned Counsel supports the order and submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in passing the impugned order, which can be corrected by this Court.

6. From perusal of record it is evident that vide order dated 13-8-10, learned Court below directed that the matter be placed before the Lok Adalat, but instead of placing the same in Lok Adalat the matter was decided by the regular Court on 30-8-10. Learned Court below has not given any reason for not refunding the Court-fee, while it was one of the term of compromise. Thus, the mistake committed by the learned Court below is apparent on the face of record. Since the matter was settled in compromise and the suit was dismissed as per compromise, therefore, there was no justific

ation on the part of learned Court below in not directing for refund of Court-fee. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 15-3-11 passed on the review application filed by the petitioner is set aside and also the order dated 30-8-10 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/09 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled for refund of Court-fee as, per procedure. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. Civil Revision allowed.