IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 345 of 2010() --------------------- IA NO.1378/2001 IN OS.969/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------- S.B.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE N.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT AMBIKA NIVAS, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------- THULASEDHARAN, S/O.RAMAN, RESIDING AT CHITTOOR HOUSE, THIRUMULLAVARAM.P.O, KOLLAM-12. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.C.SINOY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.345 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated May 24, 2010 on I.A.No.1378 of 2010 in O.S.No.969 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam. O.S.No.969 of 2008 is a suit filed by petitioner for realization of Rupees eleven lakhs as per a cheque allegedly issued by respondent. At the time of filing plaint he paid one tenth of the court fee payable and after respondent filed written statement and issues were framed the case was posted on 31.03.2010 for payment of balance court fee amounting to Rs.90,000/- and odd. On account of inability to raise the amount within that time he did not pay the same. Counsel for petitioner requested time for payment of balance court fee which was not allowed by the learned Principal Sub Judge. Ultimate result was rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) on 31.03.2010. Within five days as the learned counsel submits petitioner filed I.A.No.1378 of 2010 seeking review of the order rejecting plaint on 31.03.2010. That application was dismissed on May 24, 2010 stating that there is no error apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel states that it was rejecting request of petitioner for time to pay balance court fee that the plaint was rejected on 31.03.2010. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. CRP No.345/2010 2 2. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code permits review when there is an error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. True, the expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ occurring in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code must be read ejusdem generis. But it was not as if the court lacked power to extend time for deposit of balance court fee or to review order dated 31.03.2010 and give an opportunity to the petitioner to pay balance court fee and proceed with the suit. Having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that learned Sub Judge was not justified in rejecting extension of time requested for by the petitioner on 31.03.2010 and disallowing the prayer for review. I am inclined to allow I.A.No.1378 of 2010. Resultantly this revision is allowed in the following lines: i. The impugned order dismissing I.A.No.1378 of 2010 in O.S.No.99 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam is set aside. That application will stand allowed. ii. Petitioner is granted fifteen days time from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment in the trial court to deposit the balance court fee payable on plaint in the court below. iii. In case balance court fee is not paid within the aforesaid time this revision will stand dismissed in conformation of the impugned order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks