IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 494 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2008 IN IA 1221/2007 IN OS.174/2006 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. M/S.JAYABHARATHAM FINANCIERS COMPANY (REGD.), PUNALUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-P.T.SUBASH BABU. 2. RAJU VARGHESE, (PARTNER), KARIMARATHINAL HOUSE, MULLASSERY, PRAMADAM, PATHANAMTHITA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.V.JEEVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.BHANU PANIKER, RESIDING AT PUSHPAMANGALAM, BHARANIKAVU, PUNALUR MURI,PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT. 2. DEEPTHI.S, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O.P.V.JEEVAKUMAR, RESIDING AT PUSHPAMANGALAM, BHARANIKAVU, PUNALUR MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. P.B.CHANDRAKUMAR, ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O.BHANU PANIKER, RESIDING AT PUSHPAMANGALAM, BHARANIKAVU, PUNALUR MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.494 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated, 10.4.2008, in I.A.No.1221 of 2007 in O.S.No.174 of 2006, on the file of Sub Court, Kottarakara. I.A.No.1221 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dismissing the suit for payment of the balance court fee and to restore the suit. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition for the reason that petitioner did not pay the court fee payable. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that even if petitioners are to pay the court fee, once the review petition is allowed, that court fee is to be refunded to the petitioners, and in such circumstances, there is no necessity to insist for payment of court fee, as has been done by the learned Sub Judge. CRP.No.494 of 2008 2 Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Gangadharan v. James Joseph (2003 (2) KLT 619), wherein it is held that, 'it is well settled position of law that when the appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint is allowed the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum is to be refunded, in view of the provisions contained in S.67 of the Kerala Court Fees Act, and since there is no adjudication of any of the claims in the suit, and also in view of the provisions contained in S.67 of the Court Fees Act, it is not necessary for the petitioner to pay one-half of the entire court fee'. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, admitted facts disclose that the suit was dismissed for non payment of the balance court fee. I.A.No.1221 of 2007 itself is an application to review the judgment, to enable the petitioners to pay the balance court fee and to get the suit restored. Petitioners have got no case that they are not liable to pay the balance court fee in the suit. In such circumstances, petitioners are directed to pay the court fee as directed by learned Sub Judge in I.A.No.1221 of 2007. Once the petition is allowed and the order is reviewed, the fee so paid is to be treated towards the balance court fee payable in the suit and petitioners need only deposit the balance court fee payable, after CRP.No.494 of 2008 3 deducting the court fee paid in I.A.No.1221 of 2007. If the petitioners pay the balance court fee payable in I.A.No.1221 of 2007 within 10 days from today, petition shall be restored and appropriate orders shall be passed in I.A.No.1221 of 2007. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.