IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 405 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN CRP.1039/2007 .................... PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF/1ST DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIYA JOSE KOTTURAN, D/O.JULIAN J.DAVID, AGED 63 YEARS, PARAEKKATT BUNGLAW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, RESIDING AT B7, GCDA HIG, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. RESPONDENTS/ REVIEW PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS, PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 - 5: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 82 YEARS, RUBI VILLA, ARAMBAD, MITHAPOOR, GUJARATH STATE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P.VARGHESE, S/O.LATE PAILY, AGED 67 YEARS, KANNOTH HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ELOOR SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. POLY K. AYYAMPILLY, SON OF LATE A.P.KURIAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEN BOOKS LIMITED, AYYAMPILLY HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THOMAS J. DAVID @ TOMY, S/O.JOSEPH J.DAVID, PERAKKATT BUNGLOW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK (PRESENT ADDRESS NOT KNOWN). 4. JOSEPH J. DAVID, S/O.JULLAN J.DAVID, PAREKKAT BUNGLOW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK (PRESENT ADDRESS NOT KNOWN). 5. ANNIE JOSEPH, WIFE OF JOSEPH J.DAVID, PEREKKAT BUNLGOW, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK (ORESENT ADDRESS NOT KNOWN). BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY, ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== R.P. No.405 OF 2008 in CRP.No.1039/2007 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of April 2008 O R D E R By virtue of my order dated 18.3.2008 I had directed the court below to consider about the correctness of the court fee and in the process of making the decision I had held that the real provision is Section 25(b) and not Section 25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees Act. Learned counsel would contend that in fairness that also may be left open to be decided by the trial court so that there can be full fledged materials supplied for the arrival of a decision. I feel there is considerable force in the said contention. After hearing the other side, it can be left open to be decided by the court below. Therefore, I clarify that the court while considering the question of court fee, is free to consider whether section 25(b) or Section 25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees Act is applicable in deciding the case. Review petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- CRPs 1918 & 1919/2003 -:2:-