ORDER.- This is a Petition by the plaintiff against the order of the Court below, holding that the plaintiff will not be entitled to a refund of half the court-fee paid on the suit claim. The suit was on the basis of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. It is found from the records that on an earlier occasion the suit had been decreed ex parte. Then the plaintiff had also been examined as a witness, and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-17, were marked in evidence. Later the ex parte decree was set aside, and, the defendants entering appearances, issues were framed and the case was getting adjourned for trial. Before the case was taken up for disposal on. merits as contest, a memorandum of compromise was filed in Court, and with reference to this the endorsement on the plaint by the plaintiff’s Counsel runs thus: “ Compromise memo, has been filed. It may be recorded. The suit is reported settled out of Court. Half the court-fee paid on the plaint may be refunded to the plaintiff.” The memo. of compromise, which is in the usual form of memos. of compromise filed in Courts, refers to the plaintiff having received, on the day in question, Rs. 10,000. in cash from one Sheik Abdul Khadar, on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 in full settlement of the claims between them. There is a clause there that, in view of the said settlement between the plaintiff and the defendants, the suit shall be withdrawn by the plaintiff as settled out of Court. There are other provisions about stamp papers, which had been handed over to plaintiff by the defendants, so that they might get refund. There is an embargo against the plaintiff using those stamp papers for any other purpose, except for getting a refund. The compromise provides that the defendants will in no way be responsible and liable, if the plaintiff was not able to get. refund of the stamps. When the case was taken up the parties did not stop with merely filling this memo, into Court and intimating to the Court that the case was withdrawn as the matter had been settled out of Court and praying that the suit might be dismissed. refund of the stamps. When the case was taken up the parties did not stop with merely filling this memo, into Court and intimating to the Court that the case was withdrawn as the matter had been settled out of Court and praying that the suit might be dismissed. The Counsel for the plaintiff wanted the compromise petition to be recorded while reporting settlement out of Court and insisted on the compromise being specifically recorded. The learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, before whom the matter came, observed in the judgment passed on the occasion,. that from the insistence of the defendant’s Counsel it was obvious that the Court was required to set its seal of approval on the arrangement, by recording the compromise. The Court observed that the arrangement could not be recorded as a mere report to Court that the suit had been settled out of Court. The actual order of Court was for recording the compromise, a decree to be drawn up in terms of the compromise in so far as it related to the subject-matter of the suit. In these circumstances, the learned City Civil Judge held that the plaintiff would not be entitled to refund of half the court-fee paid on the suit claim. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that all that section 69 of the Madras Court-fees Act, 1955, required was a dismissal of the suit as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim, and that as it was the ultimate result of the compromise in this case he would be entitled to refund of half the court-fee. It is pointed out that, in the decree as drafted, there is a clause regarding the withdrawal of the suit as settled out of Court. But there is another clause also in the decree relating to documents. In this case, the parties were not satisfied with merely getting the suit dismissed, but wanted the compromise to be recorded by the Court. It is quite apparent that the parties wanted not merely a dismissal of the suit as settled out of Court, but a record by the Court of the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim. A settlement out of Court may contain executory agreements. The settlement might still keep the claim outstanding. It is quite apparent that the parties wanted not merely a dismissal of the suit as settled out of Court, but a record by the Court of the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim. A settlement out of Court may contain executory agreements. The settlement might still keep the claim outstanding. Here, what the parties wanted was a record by the Court that the claim had been settled and satisfied. In fact, there is no prayer in the compromise for dismissal of the suit as settled, though there is a provision for the withdrawal of the suit as settled out of Court. Standing by itself the suit would be dismissed though they have not asked for a dismissal of the suit as settled out of Court. But, when the matter came up before the Court the plaintiff’s Counsel wanted the compromise to be recorded and the Counsel for the defendants insisted upon a decree in terms of the compromise. In fact, the matter has been proceeded with under Order 23, rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The language of section 69 of the Court-fees Act does not provide for a refund of court-fee, where a compromise is got decreed by the Court. Refund is provided for, only in cases where the suit is got dismissed as settled out of Court. Learned Counsel submits that merely because a memo. is put into Court, setting out the terms of the settlement, when the suit is ultimately dismissed as settled out of Court the plaintiff should not be deprived of the benefit of the provision of section 69. But that is unfortunately not the case here. When the parties desire to report settlement of a case to Court, and pray for the dismissal, they might, and Counsel might as a matter of caution insist upon a memo. being filed in Court to that effect. The memo. may even contain the terms of the settlement but the prayer to Court is for dismissal of the suit as settled. Getting the terms also recorded is a quite different thing. While seeking a record of a compromise and the terms of the settlement, if a term is first put into the memo. The memo. may even contain the terms of the settlement but the prayer to Court is for dismissal of the suit as settled. Getting the terms also recorded is a quite different thing. While seeking a record of a compromise and the terms of the settlement, if a term is first put into the memo. to the effect that the suit is settled out of Court and is being withdrawn, it looks like a camouflage, for the purpose of getting refund of court-fee, the other terms of the compromise and the prayer in Court for recording the terms being inconsistent with a plain decree of dismissal of the suit. The learned City Civil Judge has set out exactly as to what had happened in Court and what was required of the Court on the memo. of compromise. The Court was asked to record the compromise, and a decree has been directed by the Court in terms of the compromise in so far as they related to the suit. The submission to Court was not for recording the suit as settled out of Court. I do not think that, ‘in the circumstances, the Court below could be said to have erred in refusing to direct refund of half the court-fee, in terms of section 69 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. In the view I take the memo. of comrpomise and the proceedings thereon, it is unnecessary to consider whether merely recording of evidence on the merits at an earlier stage of the suit, when the defendants had not even entered appearance, but were set ex parte, will, by itself, debar the plaintiff from claiming refund of half the court-fee, if later, the suit is got dismissed as settled out of Court. The Revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. R.M. ------ Revision dismissed.