IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 RFA.No. 473 of 2009() --------------------- OS.368/2005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- PATTANAM VYAKULAMBIKA MARANANANTHARA SAHAYA SANGHAM, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT K.V.VIJU, AGED 37, S/O.VARGHESE, KUZHUPPILLY HOUSE, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKKARA, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. ANTONY, S/O.PAILY, MUTTICKAL VEEDU, PUTHENVELIKARA KARA, PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE, PUTHENVELIKARA P.O.,PARAVUR TALUK. 2. THRESIA, W/O.ANTONY, MUTTICKAL VEEDU, PUTHENVELIKARA KARA, PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE, PUTHENVELIKARA P.O., PARAVUR TALUK. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR, SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CM Appl. 1184/09 & RFA No.473 of 2009-F ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 6th September 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is filed against an order, rejecting a plaint for non-payment of the balance court fee. The application to condone the delay is supported by an elaborate affidavit, running to more than three pages, which explains the delay of 238 days by stating that the appellant/plaintiff is an organisation, which has different litigations and there was a communication gap between the Lawyer and the plaintiff. The appealing plaintiff is an organisation, which is stated to be a “Maranananthara Sayaha Sanghom”, intended to provide support to the relatives of bereaved persons. It also provides financial assistance and provides loans. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on either side and taking into consideration the fact that the plaint stands rejected for non-payment of the RFA 473/09 2 balance court fee, we are inclined to give the plaintiff an opportunity to pursue the suit. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is allowed on condition that the appellant pays the respondents by making payment to the counsel appearing before this Court, an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. We clarify that we have not touched anything on the merits of the plaintiff's right to sue and also his other rights. We, however, caution that the court below has erroneously ordered refund of 1/10th of the court fee paid, which is not normally be permissible in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. We direct that the parties shall appear before the Court below on 01.10.2010 or before the said date and the plaintiff shall pay the balance court fee on or before 01.10.2010. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RFA 473/09 3 RFA 473/09 4