IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25837 of 2006(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAJEEDHA BEEVI, D/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAPHA, NANNARAVILAKOM PUTHEN VEEDU, KONCHIRAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MAJEETHA BEEVI, T.C.49/638 (1) KALIPPANKULAM WARD, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. NAJEEB, T.C.4/2488, FIRDOUS MANZIL, MARAPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. NIZAR, T.C.55/1856, VILAYIL VEEDU, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.ANILKUMAR FOR R4,R5 SHRI.SABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25837/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF DEED NO.2632 DATED 17/10/1979. P2 : COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/04/1996 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANACAUD. P3 : COPY OF O.S.NO.41/2000 (O.P.(INDIGENT) NO. 85/1996 DATED NIL. P4 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27/06/2005 IN O.S.NO.41/2000 (O.P.(INDIGENT) NO.85/1996. P5 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P6 : COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28/06/2006 TO PETITIONER. P8 : COPY OF NOTICE SENT BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TO PETITIONER DATED 28/06/2006. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25837 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of court fees. Even though learned counsel contended that the District Collector should have made application before the Civil Court for recovery of court fee, I do not think the contention is tenable because Civil Court has fixed court fee on the party liable to pay court fee, who is the plaintiff in this case. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner will be encashed subject to the result of appeal filed against the decree. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg