IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 181 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/01/2010 IN IA.2245/2009 IN OS.132/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT.,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------- NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, BRANCH AT KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------- 1. TROBIN K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.K.K.SASIDHARAN THADATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SHAJI K.B., S/O.BABY, LEELA VILLA, KARAPPUZHA P.., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. FOR R1-2 SRI.A.K.GOPALAN FOR R1-2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.181 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of December, 2010 ORDER Order dated January 13, 2010 on I.A.No.2245 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kottayam is under challenge. Petitioner sued respondents for recovery of `.96,660/- with interest and cost. Learned counsel submits that respondents were set ex parte on 18-08-2005 and the case was posted on 25-08-2009 for payment of balance court fee and for ex parte evidence. Learned counsel stated that his counter part in the trial court could not intimate petitioner about the posting and hence could not pay the balance court fee on 25-08-2009. On that day the plaint was rejected for non payment of balance court fee. Following that, petitioner filed I.A.No.2245 of 2009 for review of the order dated 25-08-2009. That application was dismissed for the reason that no sufficient explanation is offered. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be given an opportunity to prosecute the suit further by depositing the balance court fee. Learned counsel for respondents contended that proper remedy of petitioner was to prefer an appeal against the order rejecting the plaint for non C.R.P.No.181 of 2010 : 2 : payment of balance court fee. 2. No doubt an order rejecting the plaint being a decree is appealable. But, a review of the order rejecting the plaint is also permissible. Hence, it cannot be contended that I.A.No.2245 of 2009 was not maintainable. Then the next question is whether petitioner had sufficient reason for non payment of balance court fee on 25-08-2009 and the order is to be reviewed. I stated the circumstances under which according to the petitioner balance court fee could not be remitted on 25-08-2009. I do not find reason to think that failure to pay the court fee was wilful or due to any contumacious act on the part of petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: Order dated January 13, 2010 on I.A.No.2245 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kottayam is set aside and that application will stand allowed. Petitioner shall pay the balance court fee on or before 22-12-2010. On such payment, court below shall proceed with the suit as provided under law. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 22-12-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-