JUDGMENT : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The petitioner, Simbus Technologies Private Limited has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court below refusing to refund the Court fees in terms of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). on the ground that the suit was disposed of upon a settlement/compromise after the evidence had commenced in the course of trial. 2. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below for ready reference: "The plaintiff has sought return of court fee in view of amendment brought to the Sec. 66 of Karnataka Court-Fees Act after evidence is commenced. The Plaintiff is not entitled for refund of court fee. Hence, the prayer of refund of court fee is rejected." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before the Court that the amendment provision of Section 66 of the Act, substituted with effect from 21.01.2015 which directs under Sub-Section (1) of Section 66 that whether the dispute is settled in any of the modes prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 75% of the Court fees shall be ordered to be refunded to the parties by whom the same has been respectively paid. 4. He submitted that the learned Court below has not taken note of the said provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act. Though, admittedly, dispute in the present case was referred to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the same has resulted in settlement between the parties, and the said settlement of memorandum dated 28.10.2016 was only affirmed by the learned Court below under Rules 24 and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation Rules, 2005) r/w Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, he submitted that since mediation is one of the prescribed and alternative mode of dispute resolution as stipulated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure therein, therefore, the learned Court below bound to refund 75% of the Court fees paid for institution of the said suit, which in the present case amounts to Rs. 1,48,950. 5. Learned AGA has not opposed the said submission. 6. 1,48,950. 5. Learned AGA has not opposed the said submission. 6. Section 66 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, is quoted below for ready reference: "66. Refund on settlement before hearing:-(1) Where the Court refers the parties to the suit to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute referred to in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the dispute is settled, seventy-five per cent of the amount of Court fee paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suits shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid. (2) In cases not covered by sub section (!); Whenever by agreement of parties:- (a) any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim; or (b) any suit is compromised ending in a compromise decree before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim; or (c) any appeal is disposed of before the commencement of hearing of such appeal. Seventy-five per cent of the amount of Court fee paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit or appeal shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties who have paid such fee." 7. It is clear from the bare reading of said provision that Sub-Section (1) of Section 66 of the said Act mandates refund of 75% of the Court fees, in case the suit is disposed of by settling the matter in any of the modes prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 89 of CPC admittedly provides for four modes of alternative dispute resolution outside the Court namely: (a) Arbitration; (b) Conciliation; (c) Judicial Settlement including settlement through Lok-Adalat or (d) Mediation. 8. Since suit in the present case was admittedly disposed of by way of settlement of dispute in one of the prescribed modes, namely, by mediation, the learned Court below was bound to refund 75% of the Court fees in the present case. Learned Court below appears to have not taken note of the amended provisions of Section 66 of the said Act and has gone by the un-amended earlier provisions, where after the commencement of evidence the refund of court fees was not envisaged. Learned Court below appears to have not taken note of the amended provisions of Section 66 of the said Act and has gone by the un-amended earlier provisions, where after the commencement of evidence the refund of court fees was not envisaged. The said amendment particularly, Sub-Section (1) inserted in Section 66, with effect from 21.01.2015 appears to have been brought in to encourage resolution of disputes by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, learned Court below is left with no choice but to direct refund of the Court fees. 9. Accordingly, present writ petition deserves to be allowed and learned Court below is directed to refund 75% of the Court fees of Rs. 1,98,600/- paid by the petitioner which comes to Rs. 1,48,950/-, within a period of four weeks from today.