IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 25938 of 2007(K) --------------------------------------- OS.810/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSE, S/O. ERINJERI KURIAN, AGED 42 YEARS, BUSINESS,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKUMPATTU KARA DESOM & VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CHANDRABOSE, S/O. THALIKULAM BHASKARAN CHANDRABOSE, PARAVATTANI DESOM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. CHITHRA CHANDRABOSE, W/O.CHANDRABOSE, PARAVATTANI DESOM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. SONY, S/O. OVUNGAL THIMATHY, LOURDAPURAM DESOM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.RAJIT R3 BY MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25938/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA. 1748/06 FOR REVIEW. P2:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA.1749/2006 FOR RESTORING IA. 5016/2004. P3:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA. 2298/07 FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF COSTS. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE TRICHUR IN IA. 1749/06 DTD. 4.4.07. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE TRICHUR IN IA. 1748/06 DTD. 4.4.07. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE TRICHUR IN IA. 2298/07 DTD. 4.4.07 DT. THIS 23RD DAY AUGUST 2007. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 25938 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders. 2. Petitioner instituted O.S. 810 of 2002 before Sub court, Trichur, which was one for realisation of money. Along with the suit, he paid one tenth of the court fee as required under law. Later he filed a petition for exempting him from paying the balance court fee as according to him he was not able to raise funds to pay the necessary court fee. That petition happened to be dismissed. Consequently the plaint was rejected. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 for review of the order rejecting the plaint and another petition to restore the petition to exempt the petitioner from payment of court fee. The court below heard those petitions and allowed the petition for exemption on payment of costs. He did not pay the costs within the time stipulated. He filed a third WPC.25938/2007. 2 petition seeking extension of time for payment of costs and the court declined to grant extension. 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the necessary court fee and his review application may be directed to be considered. 4. Since the petitioner is willing to pay the balance court fee, it is not necessary to consider Exts.P4 and P6 orders. As the petitioner is willing to pay the court fee, it is only proper that he be given a chance to prosecute the case. The matter need not be remanded for fresh consideration. In the result the review application is allowed and the order rejecting the plaint is set aside on condition that the petitioner pays the court fee within two months from the date of this judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE WPC.25938/2007. 3 sb.