IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).NO. 594 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1236/06 IN OS.206/2003 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------- SHIBU K.VARGHESE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. GEVARGHESE, VALIYAVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNALUR MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, PADMA BHAVAN, THOLIKODU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 2. GOPAKUMAR, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, SASTHAMKONAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 3. K.K.MATHAI, ALUMOOTTIL VEEDU, PIDAVOOR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.594 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S. No.206 of 2003 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kottarakkara is the petitioner before me. He sued respondents for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Plaint was rejected on 08.08.2006 under Order VII Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for non- payment of balance court fee. Petitioner filed Ext.P2, application for review of the said order quoting Order IX Rule 9 of the Code as the provision of law under which relief was sought. Petitioner contended that it was under a mistaken impression that the case was posted on 18.06.2006 that balance court fee was not paid on 08.06.2006. Exhibit P2, application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge on 10.12.2008 observing that application is not maintainable under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code. Prayer in this petition is to issue a direction to the learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P2, application afresh on merit after considering the law and precedents. O.P(C) No.594 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. Exhibit P2, application has already been disposed of. Hence no question of issuing any direction to the learned Sub Judge for fresh disposal arises. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv