IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 483 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/10 /05 IN IA 3051/2004. IN OS.124/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------- R. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, THATTARETHU VEETTIL, PADINJATTUM MURI KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE & TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THANKAPRABHA, PUNNTHALA CHERRI, KOLLAM. (DIED) ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 AND 3: 2.RAJALEKSHMI, AGED 60, W/O.LATE SIVASANKARAN PILLAI, THANKAPRABHA, PUNNATHALA CHERI, KOLLAM. 3.ISHA,AGED 35, D/O.SIVASANKARAN PILLAI, THANKAPRABHA, PUNNATHALA CHERI, KOLLAM. THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 IN I.A.NO.3535/2009. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------- D. PADMAJAN, OWNER OF LATHIKA CASHEW FACTORY, THAZHATHU GREEN HOUSE, NEAR PULIYATHUMUKKU, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. (DIED) ADDL.R2 AND R3: 2.ANGAL VALSALA.C.J, ADVOCATE, W/O.D.PADMARAJAN, THAZHATH VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR (P.O.), KOLLAM – 4. 3.MASHA.P.,D/0.D.PADMARAJAN, DO. DO. CRP.483/06 THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AND R3 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT AS PER ORER DATED 30.10.2009 IN I.A.NO.418/2009. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR ADDL.R2&3 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR ADDL.R2&3 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR ADDL.R2&3 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR ADDL.R2 & 3 SRI.MATHEW SUNNY FOR ADDL.R2&3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.483 OF 2006 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision was filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.124 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. Suit was one for recovery of money and the respondent in the revision was the defendant. Pending revision, petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant passed away and the legal representatives have been brought in as additional revision petitioners and additional respondents. After filing of the written statement by the defendant in the suit and casting of issues, the court posted the case for payment of the balance court fee fixing the date of such payment on 20th August, 2004. Plaintiff moved an application for enlargement of time. Representation made for enlargement of time was not entertained since the application filed had not reached the court. The plaint was rejected for nonpayment of the court fee. The application moved for enlargement of time as CRP.483/06 2 I.A.No.2794 of 2004 was also rejected the next day. Plaintiff filed an application for review of the order rejecting the plaint. That was also dismissed by the court below for the reason the petition has not been filed in the proper form raising grounds as in a memorandum of appeal. Propriety and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. Rejection of the review petition, for the reason that it was defective as it had not been filed in the proper form, by the learned Sub Judge is not correct. If at all the petition was defective, an opportunity should have been extended to the petitioner to rectify and cure the defects. That was not done. Further more, on the facts and circumstances presented also, it is apparent the dismissal of the review petition seeking review of an order rejecting the plaint for nonpayment of the balance court fee cannot be justified. In the absence of wilful default in payment of court fee, a review of the order rejecting a plaint for nonpayment of the balance court fee deserve to be CRP.483/06 3 examined in the backdrop that to the extent possible an opportunity should be given to the party to have a decision on his suit on merits, and not a disposal of his case on technical grounds. The order rejecting the review petition is set aside and the court below is directed to consider the review petition afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Suit is seen instituted in the year 2003, and so much so, the court below shall hear and dispose of the review petition as expeditiously as possible. Revision is disposed accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp