Judgment :- 1. This C.R.P. having been finally beard on 5-8-1987, the Court on the same day passed the following: Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. O.S.No.40 of 1985 filed by the revision petitioner before the Subordinate Judge, Tirur is for realisation of amounts due from the defendants by sale of the mortgaged properties. Defendants admitted the plaint claim and filed a statement to that effect. Thereupon the trial court passed a preliminary decree under 0.34 R.3 C.P.C. directing the defendants to pay the amounts with interest and costs within six months. Plaintiff was also permitted to apply for final decree for sale if the amounts are net so paid. The further provision in the decree is: "If the entire decree debt is paid off and the defendants apply for full satisfaction of the decree debt within the said 6 months' time and only if no further investigation in the matter is necessitated hereafter provided the entire decree debt is satisfied within 6 months time, the plaintiff be entitled to refund of half the Court fee". 2. That portion of the preliminary decree of the trial court which refused refund of one half of the court fee to the plaintiff is the subject matter of challenge in this civil revision petition. 3. S.69 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 says: "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 parlies by whom the same have been paid respectively." 4. The trial court has gone under the wrong impression that refund of court fee provided under S 69 of the Court Fees Act is conditional on the defendant or the defendants satisfying the decree debt. In fact such a condition is not there. What is necessary is only decision of the case solely en the admission of the defendants without the necessity of any investigation. If the suit is decided solely on the admission of the defendants without any investigation the court has no discretion. It is bound to refund one half of the court fee to the plaintiff. What is necessary is only decision of the case solely en the admission of the defendants without the necessity of any investigation. If the suit is decided solely on the admission of the defendants without any investigation the court has no discretion. It is bound to refund one half of the court fee to the plaintiff. For that purpose the court need not and cannot wait for payment of the decree debt by the defendants or realisation of the same by the plaintiff by execution or otherwise. What is required is only a decision of the case in the manner provided under S.69. 5. In the decision reported in Marthoma Rubber Co. v. Union Bank of India (1987 (1) KLT 525) the question that arose for consideration was whether decision on the admission alone at the stage of settlement of issues will involve S.69 of the Court Fees Act. It was held that the enquiry envisaged under 0.14 R.1 (5) C.P.C. cannot be taken as an investigation contemplated in S.69 of the Court fees Act and that S.69 is applicable even when the suit is decided solely on admission at that stage. So far as this case is concerned even that stage has not reached. No written statement was filed and no contest was made. Even without doing so the claim was admitted and the suit was decreed. 6. The trial court seems to have gone under the further wrong impression that proceedings in final decree also will have to be taken into account for deciding the applicability of S.69 of the Court Fees Act. That may be the reason why in Para.5 of the judgment the trial court has stated that only if no further investigation in the matter is necessitated and the entire decree debt is satisfied within six months, the plaintiff will be entitled to refund of one half of the court fee. The rights and liabilities are finally determined by the preliminary decree itself. Even though proceedings in final decree is also a continuation of the proceedings on the trial side it is an independent proceedings starting on a fresh application. In a suit which is decreed under 0.34 R.3 there is no question of any further investigation in the final decree proceedings. Therefore the view taken by the trial court is evidently wrong. Even though proceedings in final decree is also a continuation of the proceedings on the trial side it is an independent proceedings starting on a fresh application. In a suit which is decreed under 0.34 R.3 there is no question of any further investigation in the final decree proceedings. Therefore the view taken by the trial court is evidently wrong. That mistake has resulted in refusal of one half of the court fee to the plaintiff. In turn that mistake resulted in burdening the defendants with liability for the full costs including full court fee. 7. C.R.P. is therefore allowed and the decree of the trial court is modified by providing that the revision petitioner is entitled to refund one half of the court fee under S.69 of the Court Fees Act. Naturally the judgment and decree will have to be suitably amended regarding the liability of the defendants far costs. In the circumstances I do not make any order as to costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms. Allowed.