IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RFA.No. 825 of 2009() -------------------------- OS.518/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------- K.R. DINESH KUMAR, S/O. RAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ----------------------------------- SHAKEELA SAIDU MUHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, PERUMPATTU HOUSE, KUNNISSERI DESOM, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RFA No.825 of 2009-E & CM Appl.No.2182/09 in RFA 825/09 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 26th November 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is against rejection of a plaint on the ground of non-payment of balance court fee. The appealing plaintiff stands with this affirmation in the appeal memorandum that he could not pay the balance court fee in time as he was not in station since he had to accompany his sister for treatment in Mumbai as she was suffering from cancer. It was on the aforesaid premise that the application to condone the delay and the grounds of appeal are built. Though the respondent has filed a counter affidavit to the application seeking condonation of delay, we are of the view that the appellant has demonstrated fair and sufficient cause to condone the delay and also to let him have an opportunity to have a decision on merits in the RFA 825/09-E 2 suit and he needs therefore, to be permitted to pay the balance court fee. We also note that the appellant stands to state that he has provided a fixed deposit receipt for Rs.39,000/- in terms of the order dated 27.09.2010. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and allow this appeal. The order rejecting the plaint in OS No.518/07 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, North Parur is set aside and the court below is directed to take back the suit to file. The appellant is granted three weeks' time to pay the balance court fee. All this is on condition that the appellant will pay the respondent an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs of this appeal within three weeks for which the appellant will file a memo before the court below and if the conditions as to payment of court fee and payment of balance court fee are satisfied within the prescribed time limit, the court below will release the FD RFA 825/09-E 3 receipt to the appellant and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The RFA and CM Application are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RFA 825/09-E 4