Order.- This is a case which raises an interesting question of refund of court-fee claimed under section 69 of the Madras Court Fees and Suits’ Valuation Act,. 1955. That provision reads thus: “Whenever any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim, half the amount of all fees paid is respect of the claim or claims in the suit shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid. Explanation.- The expression ‘merits of the claim ‘shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 12.” The suit was filed for three reliefs: (a) for evicting the defendant from the premises bearing door No. 49, St. Xavier Street, and taking possession of the premises and the equipment installed there ; (b) granting an injunction restraining the defendant or his servants and agents from exhibiting pictures in the theatre situated in the said premises ; (c) directing the defendant to pay each of the plaintiffs Rs. 11,250 for damages for use, and damages from 15th November, 1959, upto the date of the plaint and future damages at Rs. 150 a day; and (d) costs. Prayer (a) was valued at Rs. 27,600 ; prayer (b) at Rs. 4,000 and prayer (c) at Rs. 22,500. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application, Application No. 484 of 1960 for directing the defendants to deliver possession of the theatre, Murugan Talkies. Arguments were heard and judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the first relief and in pursuance of that judgment the plaintiffs obtained possession. The question of the liability of the defendant for damages for use and occupation was left outstanding. An interim decree was passed on 23rd March, 1960, in terms of the above judgments. Subsequently the parties settled out of Court, the outstanding claim of damages also and the following order was passed: “The suit has been withdrawn as settled out of Court. Vide the endorsement of the plaintiffs on the plaint. The suit is accordingly dismissed without costs. Half the, court-fee will be refunded, if permissible.” The plaintiffs have now moved for refund of the court-fees paid on all the three reliefs invoking section 69 of the Act. Now it is true that no evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim. The suit is accordingly dismissed without costs. Half the, court-fee will be refunded, if permissible.” The plaintiffs have now moved for refund of the court-fees paid on all the three reliefs invoking section 69 of the Act. Now it is true that no evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim. Even on the occasion when the prior judgment was delivered only a few documents already available were looked into and no fresh evidence was recorded. Now it seems to me that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a refund of the court-fee paid on all the three reliefs because it cannot be said that in respect of the first relief the suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. In fact that question was submitted for the decision of the Court and a decision was given in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit really decreed in respect of that relief. The question is whether in respect of the other two reliefs, half the court-fee attributable to those reliefs can be refunded. I think since the reliefs are separable, there can be no objection to refunding half the court-fees on these two reliefs to the plaintiffs. In my opinion the wording in section 69 itself will permit this because it speaks of claim or claims in the suit, contemplating separate claims which can be valued separately. At any rate, such a decision will be in keeping with the spirit and intendment of section 69. Accordingly the plaintiffs will be given a refund of half the court-fee payable on reliefs (b) and (c). V.K. --------------- Order accordingly.