IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 RFA.No. 516 of 2010(V) --------------------------------- OS.2/2008 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- VALIYAKATH PUTHUKUDI ABDUL LATHEEF S/O.LATE USMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, SOUDHA MANZIL, O.V.ROAD, THALASSERY BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------ CHALODAN PATHYAN BHASKARAN S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 65 YEARS, EDAKKAD AMSOM, THOTTADA DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-682 306. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH, SRI.T.REMESH BABU. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CM Appl.1463/10 in RFA 516/10 & RFA No.516 of 2010-D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd November 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. CM Appl.1463/10 Perused the affidavit. Heard. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. The CM Application is accordingly allowed and the delay is condoned. RFA 2. Heard. This appeal is filed against the rejection of a plaint on the ground of non-payment of balance court fee. The suit is for specific performance of a contract for sale. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In fact, the appellant states that he had paid the balance court fee immediately after the order of rejection and also sought for a review of the impugned order, RFA 516/10 2 however that the court below refused such relief. We are satisfied that the impugned order is liable to be set aside enabling the appellant to prosecute the suit. Under such circumstances, we direct that this appeal will stand allowed, provided the entire balance court fee has already been remitted and the appellant pays the respondent through his counsel appearing before this court, an amount of Rs.1,500/- as costs within three weeks from now and files a memo before the court below regarding such payment. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 21.12.2010. The court below would then release to the appellant the fixed deposit receipt, if any, placed before that court, following the interim orders passed in this case. The appeal is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RFA 516/10 3 RFA 516/10 4