IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 RFA.No. 73 of 2009() -------------------- OS.1111/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF(S): -------------------- BABU, 46 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PARAVATTANI DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE THRISUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOB, 79 YEARS, S/O.OLAKKENKIL CHACKU NELLANKARA DESOM, NELLISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. MAXZAL JOB @ MANOJ 39 YEARS, S/O.JOB, NELLANKARA DESOM, NELLISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R1-2 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.F.A. No.73 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal arises out of an order rejecting the complaint for non payment of balance court fee. When the matter was sent to the Adalath, it was agreed by the both sides that the appellant will deposit the balance court fee of Rs.3,40,560/= before this Court and then will move this Court for appropriate orders. The deficit of court fee is in the suit. Since it was rejected for non-payment of balance court fee, the only point that arises for consideration is whether in the factual situation, the order should be set aside and the appellant should be given time for depositing the court fee. 2. In the judgment, all that is stated is that the balance court fee is not paid and according to the appellant, as a matter for fact, since there was a talk of compromise, the R.F.A.No.73 of 2009 2 appellant thought that it may not be necessary to adjudicate on the claim made in the suit and he was under such impression, and, therefore, the court fee could not be paid. He moved an application, I.A.No.9029 of 2008, seeking extension of time for payment of balance court fee. It was dismissing the said application that the impugned judgment was passed. 3. It cannot be disputed that there was some talk of compromise, since even before this Court, there was an attempt of sending the matter to the Adalath. Therefore, there is bona fides in the contention of the appellant. The suit claim runs into lakhs, and since the appellant has deposited the balance court fee before this Court, we allow this appeal on terms. 4. The respondents will be paid an amount of Rs.2000/= towards cost. Since the amount of Rs.3,40,560/= is deposited by the petitioner towards the balance court fee before this Court, the Registry will refund the amount less Rs.2000/= towards cost, as stated above. The cost amount of Rs.2000/= will be paid to the respondents, on application being made by the R.F.A.No.73 of 2009 3 counsel appearing for the respondents. The appellant is given time to pay the deficit court fee before the court below upto 1st June, 2009. On such payment, the suit will stand restored. The appeal is allowed as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.