ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—In these two writ petitions, except the Petitioners, the facts, the issue involved, the prayers sought and Respondents are all common. Hence these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The 4th Respondent-Bank instituted two suits in O.S. Nos. 10509 of 1987 and 2328 of 1987 against the Petitioners respectively in the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, for the recovery of the amounts due to it by paying the requisite Court Fee under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CF Act'). During the pendency of those suits in the Civil Court, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted, which provides for establishment of Tribunals for adjudication of cases relating to debt recoveries in favour of Banks and Financial Institutions. In fact, such Tribunal had been constituted in Bangalore. As per Section 17(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction, power and authority to entertain and decide the applications of Banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts. By virtue of Section 18 of the Act, a bar was created on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain such applications and the same was vested with the Tribunals. In view of Section 31 of the Act which provides for transfer of pending cases to the Tribunals, the two suits instituted by the 4th Respondent-Bank came to be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. 3. When the matters were pending before the Tribunal and even before recording evidence, on the basis of compromise petition filed settling the issue, decrees were drawn. By virtue of the settlement arrived at out of the Tribunal, the Petitioners claim that parties were entitled to refund of one-half of Court fee paid. As per the terms of joint memo filed before the Tribunal, the Bank has realised the Court fee paid in the Civil Court from the Petitioners and hence the Petitioners are entitled to the Court fee refundable to it consequent upon the compromise entered into. Accordingly, when an application was filed by the Petitioners before the Tribunal seeking refund of one-half of Court fee, the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal by the orders impugned in these writ petitions. Accordingly, when an application was filed by the Petitioners before the Tribunal seeking refund of one-half of Court fee, the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal by the orders impugned in these writ petitions. The first reason assigned by the Tribunal for refusing refund of Court fee is that the Court fee was paid in the City Civil Court and the Tribunal has not received the same. The second reason is that the Tribunal is constituted by the Central Government whereas the Court fee paid goes to the Karnataka Government. The third reason is that there is no provision in the Act for refund of Court fee in the matters transferred from Civil Court. Aggrieved by those orders, the Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash those orders inter-alia seeking refund of the Court fee. 4. The short point that emerges for consideration in these matters is, in respect of the cases transferred from Civil Courts to the Debt Recovery Tribunals and settled before recording evidence, whether the Tribunal is bound to refund one-half of Court fee paid in the Civil Court? 5. Mr. Naganand, learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance upon the definition of "Court" in Section 3(ii) of the Court Fees Act which defines 'Court' as under: Court" means any civil, revenue or criminal court and includes a Tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction under any special or local law to decide questions affecting the rights of parties. (emphasis supplied) From the underlined portion above it is clear 'Court' includes a Tribunal. In other words, Tribunal is also a Court within the meaning of Section 3(ii) of Court Fees Act. 6. Section 22 of the Act deals with the procedure and powers of the Tribunal. Though Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act states that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Sub-section (2) thereof stipulates that the Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging the functions, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure . Section 66 of Court Fees Act provides for refund of half of the Court fee paid if the case ends in compromise before hearing. Section 66 of Court Fees Act provides for refund of half of the Court fee paid if the case ends in compromise before hearing. In the light of this provision and in view of the admitted position that the two suits ended in compromise before the Tribunal before hearing, it has to be held that half of the Court fee is refundable. 7. Now, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order for refusing to refund the half Court fee shall be examined. The first reason is, the Court fee was collected by the Civil Court and not by the Tribunal. Once the matter is transferred to the Tribunal which has got jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties, the Tribunal shall act in accordance with law. Since the matter is settled out of Court before hearing, by virtue of Section 66 of Court Fees Act the Tribunal is bound to refund half the Court fee. It cannot refuse refund of such fee on the ground that it had not collected the Court fee. If such a reason is to be acceptable, the Tribunal may also compel the parties to pay Court fee after transfer of cases from Civil Courts on the ground that Court fee was paid in Civil Court and no such fee is paid in the Tribunal or the Tribunal may refuse to proceed with the cases on the ground of non-payment of Court fee before them. Such a thing is not permissible in law. Once the case is transferred from one Court to another, the Court to which the case is transferred has to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Viewed from this point, the first reason assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order to refuse refund of half Court fee is wholly untenable and unacceptable. 8. Coming the second reason of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is established by the Central Government but the Court fee paid is to the Government of Karnataka. It was wholly unnecessary for the Tribunal to assign such a reason in the matter of refund of Court fee lawfully payable to the litigant. Court fee is being paid by way stamps. In respect of financial matters between the Central and State Governments, provisions are made in the Constitution of India and those provisions governs situations like this. It was wholly unnecessary for the Tribunal to assign such a reason in the matter of refund of Court fee lawfully payable to the litigant. Court fee is being paid by way stamps. In respect of financial matters between the Central and State Governments, provisions are made in the Constitution of India and those provisions governs situations like this. Whether the Court fee paid goes to Central Government or State Government, it is immaterial for the Tribunal to consider refund of Court fee on those aspects. As long as refund is permissible under Section 66 of Court Fees Act and since the Tribunal is also a Court, the Tribunal has no option but to refund the half Court fee. It follows that the impugned orders require modification to this effect. 9. The last reason of the Tribunal is that, in the Act there is no provision for refund of any Court fee in transferred matters from Civil Court. Again this reason does not stand to the test of scrutiny. It is no doubt true that there is no provision in the Act for refund of Court fee but at the same time there is no bar also. In view of Section 66 of Court Fees Act providing for refund of Court fee in respect of the matters specified therein and since the instant cases come under the said provision, the reason assigned by the Tribunal cannot be accepted. Consequently, the point raised in paragraph 4 of this order is held in the affirmative holding that Tribunal is bound to refund the Court fee in accordance with Section 66 of Court Fees Act in respect of matters transferred from Civil Court to Tribunal and settled out of Tribunal before recording evidence/hearing. 10. At this stage the learned Counsel for the Petitioners requested to order for payment of interest on the Court fee refundable. According to him, in view of the erroneous order passed by the Tribunal refusing to refund the Court fee, Petitioners have been deprived of the amounts till now and for no fault of Petitioners for this delay on account of the litigation, they are entitled to interest on the amounts. Though the request is appealable to this Court, the same cannot be granted by this Court. The order challenged in these writ petitions relates to rejection of the request for refund of Court fee. Though the request is appealable to this Court, the same cannot be granted by this Court. The order challenged in these writ petitions relates to rejection of the request for refund of Court fee. This Court has considered the correctness of the said order on merits and granted relief to the Petitioners. Beyond that this Court cannot grant the interest, which is not the subject matter of these writ petitions. On the other hand, this Court is compelled to observe that the Petitioners must be contended with the relief granted by this Court. The matters does not pertain to commercial transaction to seek interest. Hence, this Court declines to accede to the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 11. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed, consequently the applications filed by the Petitioners before the Tribunal for refund of Court fee are allowed. The impugned orders are modified ordering to refund the Court fee to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.