IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 7999 of 2006(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ASOKAN, S/O. RAMAN, MANDATHARA HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO.459/2002 OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER TO SUE AS INDIGENT PERSON NUMBERED AS I.O.P. NO.27/2001. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R2. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S. 459/2002 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF DECREE IN O.S. 459/2002 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.7999 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of court fee of Rs.28,700/-. The petitioner had filed suit as indigent person and the same is decreed in part. Court fee as stated in the decree is Rs.28,700/-. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is mistake in the computation of court fee by the civil court. If there is any such mistake, the court is bound to set right the same and it is for the court to decide as to who should pay the court fee in terms of Order XXXIII Rule 10 of CPC. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that decree is passed entitling petitioner to recover the decree amount along with cost including court fee. Since decree amount is not realised, petitioner is not able to pay court fee is his case. E.P. 84/2006 is stated to be pending before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. In the circumstances, W.P. is disposed of directing the IInd Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda to dispose of the said E.P. within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment. From out of amount recovered in execution proceedings, the court fee should be appropriated first by the 2 Execution Court making payment to the Tahsildar directly and thereafter, the balance amount recovered will be payable to the decree holder i.e. the petitioner. If correction is required in the computation of court fee, petitioner can make application and the court will make correction. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for compliance. Recovery proceedings will remain stayed for six months from now and thereafter the same will be closed, if amount is recovered as above. However, if petitioner has received decree amount, then recovery can be continued against the petitioner. The civil court will inform the developments in execution proceedings to the concerned Tahsildar. Since W.P. was pending, delay if any in applying for correction of the decree should be condoned by the civil court. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms