JUDGMENT Per P.K. MISRA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent. 2. The question relates to refund of Court fee on account of the fact that the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 2006 was settled during Lok Adalat. The prayer in the writ petition is to refund of full Court fee. The learned single Judge observed that since in the Lok Adalat order it has been indicated that the plaintiff would be entitled to refund of half of the Court fee, the claim made in the writ petition for refund of full Court fee was not maintainable. It is of course true that the learned single Judge was technically correct in observing that in the order of the Lok Adalat, it has been indicated about the refund 50% of Court fee and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. In normal course, the remedy of the present appellant would have been to file a fresh application seeking for a direction regarding refund of full Court fee before the Lok Adalat authorities for rectifying the order passed in the Lok Adalat. However, as it is well known, the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, obviously on an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition, must always endeavour to render substantial justice rather than sticking to the technicalities. By a Division Bench judgment in (2006) 1 MLJ 173 , it has been held that once the matter is settled through Lok Adalat, the litigant is entitled to refund of the full Court fee. It is of course true that subsequently the learned single Judge of this Court has raised certain doubt and had observed that 50% of the Court fee would be refundable. However, in view of the subsequent amendment of the relevant provisions contained under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, there is no further doubt that when the matter is settled in Lok Adalat, the full Court fee is refundable. As a matter of fact, such amendment in Court Fees Act must be taken to be declarative provisions. Obviously in recognition of the decision already rendered in Parvathi v. Punjab National Bank (supra), it has to be applied to all proceedings of past, present or future. 3. As a matter of fact, such amendment in Court Fees Act must be taken to be declarative provisions. Obviously in recognition of the decision already rendered in Parvathi v. Punjab National Bank (supra), it has to be applied to all proceedings of past, present or future. 3. Under such circumstances, we feel that instead of driving the present appellant to file further application before the Legal Services Authority to rectify the order, in the interest of justice, a direction is hereby given to the respondent to take necessary steps to refund full Court fee to the present appellant. 4. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Writ appeal allowed.