IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37569 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O. KUNJU PANICKER, VIJAYALAYAM, SOUTH FORT, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, NISARG VEEDU, UMBERNADU MURI, MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.37569 OF 2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.73/99 DATED 12-11-05 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA EXT.P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DECREE AND COMPROMISE PETITION IN O.S.NO.73/99 DATED 12-11-05 EXT.P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF I.A.NO.1514/06 IN O.S.NO.73/99 DATED 3-10-06 EXT.P4 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.1514/06 IN O.S.NO.73/99 DATED 6-2-07 /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 37569 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.S.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. 2. In the nature of the issue involved, I am of of the view that the presence of the legal heirs of the respondent, who is reported dead, is not necessary. The petitioner filed a suit for money, which was compromised by him with the respondent - the sole defendant. A formal compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC was also filed and signed by both the parties and their counsel. The compromise petition was considered by the learned Sub Judge in an adalath conducted in his court. The compromise petition was found to be lawful and hence it was accepted by the court below and recording the compromise, a decree was passed. 3. It is clearly stated in the judgment (Ext.P1) that one half of the court fee will be refunded to the plaintiff. But, while drafting the decree obviously by mistake it is ordered that one tenth of the court fee will be refunded. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner had remitted the full court fee. He referred to Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act and submitted that the compromise having been entered into in the adalath, there is justification for ordering refund of the full court fee. I am not impressed by the above submission. At the same time, I feel that the petitioner is eligible for refund one half of the court fee as per the compromise petition,which was accepted by the court, though the acceptance by the court was in the adalath. Under the above circumstances invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution I dispose of this writ petition directing the Principal Sub Judge, Mavelikara to facilitate refund of one half of the court fee paid on the plaint in O.S. No. 73/1999 to the counsel for the plaintiff at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk