Judgment :- 1. The defendants in a suit for recovery of money are the petitioners. The respondent is the plaintiff. 2. It is seen from the judgment that the suit was decreed on confession; that is, the suit was decided solely on the admission of the defendants. 3. The petitioners simultaneously moved the court below under S.69 of the Court Fees Act for an order directing refund of one half of the court fee paid on the plaint. The court below rejected the application entering the following finding: "Here after issues were raised on 8-8-83 the suit was posted to 23-11-83 after several adjournments. The defendants did not press their contentions subsequently. So it is not a disposal coming within S.69 of the Court Fees Act and hence refund of 1/2 fee is disallowed " 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the court below refusing refund of one half of the court fee to the plaintiff is proper or not. The answer depends upon the construction of S.69 of the Court Fees Act. S.69 reads: "69. When a suit or appeal is compromised or when a suit is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation, one-half of the Court fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been paid respectively." The Section provides that when a suit or appeal is compromised or when the suit is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation', one-half of the Court fee paid on the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be ordered to be refunded to the respective parties who had paid the court fee. The two conditions that should be satisfied are: (1) The suit or appeal is compromised or (2) The suit is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation. 5. So far as the case on band is concerned, it falls within the second category. However, the court below rejected the claim on the ground that since the issues had already been framed, the suit cannot be said to have been decided solely on the admission of the defendants without any investigation. As to why the court below held so, is not clear from the judgment. However, the court below rejected the claim on the ground that since the issues had already been framed, the suit cannot be said to have been decided solely on the admission of the defendants without any investigation. As to why the court below held so, is not clear from the judgment. May be that the court below is of the view that the issues are settled only after conducting the enquiry envisaged under Clause.5 of R.1 of 0.14 CPC and therefore the suit cannot be said to be decided without any investigation although the defendants at the time of the final hearing admitted the suit claim. The enquiry under this rule in one respect is an investigation. But how far that enquiry or investigation for the limited purpose of framing issues, debars the party who bad paid the court fee on the plaint, from claiming refund of one half of the court fee on the suit being decided on confession (but after the framing of the issues) is the ticklish question warranting answer. 6. To enable a party to claim refund of one half of the court fee it should be established that the suit was decided solely on the admission of the party against whom a decree could be passed after investigation into the disputes arising for consideration in the suit. What are the disputes which should be investigated, are revealed only by the issues. And therefore a suit, can be decided with or without investigation only after the framing of the issues. But that is not the case when a suit is decided on confession. The suit can be treated as decided on admission when the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence as envisaged under Clause.6 of R.1 of 0.14 CPC. If that be the case, there is no need to frame the issues and thus there will be no investigation contemplated under Clause.5 of R.1 of 0.14. In such circumstance the suit is decided without conducting any enquiry because there is no dispute to be enquired into. But when the defence is made issues have to be framed. To decide the issues, there should be investigation into the disputes covered by the issues. After the framing of the issues also a suit can be decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation into the disputes. But when the defence is made issues have to be framed. To decide the issues, there should be investigation into the disputes covered by the issues. After the framing of the issues also a suit can be decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation into the disputes. It is fundamental that no suit can be decided without framing the issues. If that be so the only question that need be considered is, whether the decision in the suit was given on confession or after investigation into the disputes highlighted by the issues. It should in this context be remembered that the enquiry conducted by the court to settle the issues under no circumstance could be said to be an enquiry to decide the suit. 7. This court had occasion to consider a similar provision in the Advocate's Fees R.1969, Kerala in State Bank of Travancore v. Sreepathy Bhat (1986 KLT 22) wherein this provision was interpreted by this court as follows: "Provided that when a suit is compromised, settled, or is decided solely on the admission of the parties without any investigation". After considering the various aspects of the case this court held thus: "Therefore, when the suit has been decided on admission of the defendant after the settlement of issues and before any other enquiry is made, the advocate concerned is entitled only to one half of the full fees prescribed in the Rules." That means if the disposal of the suit is solely on admission of the parties and without any investigation as such the party who paid the court fee on the plaint is entitled to refund one half of the court fee. 8. It is clear from the judgment that the suit was decided solely on the admission of the petitioners and if that be so, refund of one half of the court fee requires to be granted. I therefore allow this CRP. and set aside the order of the court below and direct the court below to pass appropriate orders directing refund of one half of the court fee. No costs.