The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 were party to the settlement before the Lok Adalat held at High Court. Ext.P1 is the settlement. This settlement arise from a reference in appeal as A.S.No.609/1994 of this Court. By virtue of the award, the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was directed to be refunded after deducting necessary charges. The petitioner, it seems fell out with respondents 4 and 5 and seeks apportionment of the court fee ordered to be refunded. The petitioner approached the Sub Collector, Thalassery for obtaining portion of the court fee. This was rejected by Ext.P5, the Sub Collector stating that refund bill cannot be endorsed to the three persons separately. It is challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C) No.15333 of 2014 2
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
3. Admittedly, two signatories to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat were Company and a partnership firm. They do not want a claim for refund. It is submitted that the Company and the firm are not in existence. It is further submitted that the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were the partners and shareholders of the Company and there is no dispute as to the fact that the Company and partnership firm do not want a share in the refund. This is also affirmed by the counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. Respondents 4 and 5 have no objection in releasing the portion of 1/3rd of the court fee to the petitioner. Though the Lok Adalat has not passed an order for apportioning the refund, considering the fact that the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 have no objection in taking W.P.(C) No.15333 of 2014 3 the respective share in the court fee, there shall be an order directing the Sub Collector to refund the court fee in the ratio 1:1:1 among the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 based on the refund order issued by the Registrar (General) by Ext.P2. The second respondent shall refund the amount in the above mentioned ratio to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 separately without further delay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln