IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11621 of 2006(H) -------------------------------------- OS.85/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHAJAHAN, S/O. KOLLAMPARAMBIL KUNJUMARAKKAR, PALLIPPURAM DESOM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY SALAM, S/O. MANNANTHARA ALI, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SHEMIM W/O. SHAJAHAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- PADMAJAN, S/O. ERATT KUNJAKKAN, PERINJANAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY SAVITHADEVI W/O. ERATT PADMAJAN, -DO- -DO- *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA. IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C) VIDE ORDER DTD. 22.5.2006. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.11621/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE IA.2192/05 FILED IN COURT BELOW. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER ON EXT.P1. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.11621 Of 2006 ---------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The plaintiffs in O.S.No.85 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda are the petitioners. Ext.P2 order passed by the learned sub Judge in I.A.No.2192 of 2005 is under challenge. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2192 of 2005 seeking refund of the court fee. Suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement. For prayer (A), Rs.32,450/- was paid as court fee. Prayer (A) is for passing a decree of specific performance in terms of the contract. Prayer (B) is an alternate prayer for return of the advance amount. During the pendency of the suit, prayer (A) was withdrawn by the plaintiffs as contemplated under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter the suit was proceeded as there was only one prayer only, ie., for return of the advance amount. After the disposal of the suit, the I.A. was filed seeking refund of the court fee paid for prayer (A). ::2:: W.P.(C).No.11621 Of 2006 2. The court below examined the request of the petitioners with reference to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The petitioner could not point out any provision in the said Act enabling the court to order refund of court fee. The court after considering the matter in detail rightly concluded that the petitioners are not entitled to refund of the court fee paid for prayer (A) which was withdrawn during the pendency of the suit. In these circumstances, I find that no grounds are made out for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-