IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 3202 of 2001() ---------------------- OS.54/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF:- --------------------- NEDUMUDI VILLAGE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.2331, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS:- --------------- 1. MATHA MODERN MILL, PULINCUNNU, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER JOSLY THOMAS. 2. SMT. JOSLY THOMAS, KIZHAKKE POONUR VEEDU, PULICUNNU. 3. BINCY K. THOMAS, DO. DO. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C. R. P. No. 3202 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 54 of 2001 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, Alappuzha. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale of plaint A and B schedule properties of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1.5 crores. The defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting the plaint claim, a copy of which is made available by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On the basis of that written statement, the suit was decreed directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the judgment, but in the judgment there was no direction to refund the half of the court fee paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1258 of 2001 before the Sub Court to incorporate the direction regarding the refund of half of the court fee paid. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed stating that there was no order to refund of court fee. 2. As the defendants have admitted the plaint claim, the plaintiff is entitled to refund half of the court fee, as provided under section 69 of the CRP 3202/01 2 Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the I.A. is allowed. The learned Sub Judge is directed to incorporate in the decree necessary stipulation regarding the refund of the half of the court fee paid, to the plaintiff . The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as found above. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn. CRP 3202/01 3 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C. R. P. No. 3202 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O R D E R 5th day of November, 2009