JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.' hereinafter), challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2014 in O.S.No.149/2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. 2. Today, when this matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal is not intended to be proceeded and I.A.No.1/2024 to withdraw this appeal and I.A.No.2/2024 to refund the court fee have been filed. The learned counsel pressed for withdrawing the appeal as sought for in the petitions. 3. In view of the above submission, the questions arise for consideration are as under; (1) Whether I.A.No.1/2024 is liable to be allowed by granting permission to withdraw the suit, without affecting the right of the appeal to file fresh RFA, if required? (2) Whether I.A.No.2/2024 is liable to be allowed so as to grant refund of court fee in view of withdrawal of this appeal? 4. Point No.1:- I.A.No.1/2024 has been filed by the appellant to withdraw the appeal without affecting his right to file fresh RFA, if required. In fact, the withdrawal sought for in this petition is without affecting the right of the appellant to file a fresh RFA if required cannot be allowed as such. Withdrawing an appeal is abandoning the appeal, where the right to file fresh appeal could not be protected. Therefore, the prayer can be allowed without granting the said relief. 5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 stands allowed and this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and the withdrawal has the effect of abandoning the appeal and the right of appeal. 6. Point No.2:- I.A.No.2/2024 is a petition filed to refund Rs.36,050/-, full court fee paid by the appellant in the appeal in view of withdrawal. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant is a person aged 69 years and taking a lenient view in consideration of the withdrawal of this appeal, Rs.36,050/- paid as court fee may be refunded. Even though the learned counsel was asked to justify the enabling provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which permits refund of court fee when an appeal is withdrawn unilaterally, his submission is confined to leniency and compassion and not on legal substratum. 8. Even though the learned counsel was asked to justify the enabling provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which permits refund of court fee when an appeal is withdrawn unilaterally, his submission is confined to leniency and compassion and not on legal substratum. 8. In this context, the question arises for consideration is whether an appellant who voluntarily withdraws an appeal is entitled for the refund of the court fee he had paid? 9. Section 69 and Section 69A of Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (for short 'the KCFSV Act' hereinafter), 1959 deal with refund of court fee in cases of compromise or when the suit is decided on the admission of the parties and refund of court-fee in case where the dispute is settled under Section 89 of the C.P.C. 10. Section 69 of the KCFSV Act provides as under; 69. Refund in cases of compromise or when Suit is decided on the admission of Parties.— 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. Provided that no refund shall be ordered where only one-tenth of the amount of fee on plaint as required by Section 4A or one- third of the amount of fee on memorandum of appeal as required by Section 52 has been paid by the parties. 11. Section 69A of the KCFSV Act introduced with effect from 01.04.2013 provides as under; 69A. Refund of court fee in case where the dispute is settled under section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.- Where a suit, appeal or other Proceeding before any court is settled by recourse to section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), the whole court fee paid on the plaint/Memorandum of Appeal or other Proceedings, except in interlocutory matters, shall be ordered by the court to be refunded to the parties concerned by whom the court fee was paid. 12. 12. On analysis of the above provisions, it has been provided that refund of one-half court fee is permissible in cases covered by two contingencies, viz., (1) when a suit or appeal is compromised and (2) when a suit is decreed solely on the admission of the parties as provided under Section 69 of the KCFSV Act. In addition to that, refund of full court fee is permissible under Section 69A of the KCFSV Act where a suit or appeal or other proceedings before any court is settled by recourse to Section 89 of C.P.C. 13. In Noorudheen v. Muhammed Najmal [ 2021 (4) KHC 257 ] : [ 2021 (4) KLT 561 ] , Division Bench of this Court held that since the provisions under Section 69A of KCFSV Act are in pari materia with the provisions under Section 69A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, dealt with by the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras represented by its Registrar General v. M.C.Subramaniam [ 2021 (2) KHC 62 ] , the law laid down by the Apex Court in that decision shall apply with equal force regarding refund of court fee under the KCFSV Act and therefore, Section 89 of the C.P.C. shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69A of KCFSV Act shall also extend to all methods of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties, i.e., private negotiations and settlements between the parties, that the court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. However, under Section 69A of KCFSV Act, no such refund of court fee shall be ordered in interlocutory matter. 14. In the Full Bench decision in Abdul Azeez v. Nedungadi Bank Limited, Kollam and others [2017 (2) KHC 389] , this Court held that unilateral statement by the appellant or a settlement arrived at out of court without being satisfied of the adjustment or satisfaction cannot be a compromise and in such cases, the appellant is not entitled to get refund of the court fee. In this case, refund of one-third court fee paid by the appellant after dismissing the appeal as 'not pressed' was considered. In this decision, the Full Bench addressed the conflict between Philomina Joseph v. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KHC 575] : [ 2009 (1) KLT 591 ] : [ILR 2009 (1) Ker. In this case, refund of one-third court fee paid by the appellant after dismissing the appeal as 'not pressed' was considered. In this decision, the Full Bench addressed the conflict between Philomina Joseph v. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KHC 575] : [ 2009 (1) KLT 591 ] : [ILR 2009 (1) Ker. 441] : [ 2009 (1) KLJ 491 ] : [ AIR 2009 Ker. 109 ] and Ramakrishnan K. v. Venugopalan [ 2013 (2) KHC 71 ] : [2013 (2) KLT 98] : [ 2013 (2) KLJ 111 ] : [ILR 2013 (2) Ker. 198] and held that admission is a unilateral act while compromise is a bilateral act. An admission made by a defendant should always result in a decree in favour of the plaintiff (unless there is a legal impediment) while a compromise need not. Like admission abandonment of a suit also is a unilateral act, the result of which is dismissal of the suit. Applying the said ratio, it is held that withdrawing a suit or an appeal is a unilateral act and the same would not come within the purview of either under Section 69 or Section 69A of KCFSV Act so as to grant refund of court fee. 15. In view of the above legal position, in the instant case, withdrawal of this appeal at the instance of the appellant being a unilateral act, the same does not entitle refund of court fee provided under Section 69 or Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, merely on the ground of lenient consideration, such plea cannot be allowed. As a sequel thereof, I.A.No.2/2024 stands dismissed.