IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 259 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2010 IN IA 1014/2010 IN OS.197/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KUNNATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, ARINALLOOR MURI, THEVAKKARA VILLAGE, ARINELLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-690538. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KUNJUMON, VARAMBEL VEEDU, NADUVIKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM-690 524. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.259 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Notice to respondent is dispensed with since he remained exparte in the court below. 2. This petition is in challenge of Ext.P3, order dated 30.03.2010 on I.A.No.1014 of 2010 in O.S.No.197 of 2009 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam. Petitioner sued respondent for recovery of money paying one-tenth of the court fee at the stage of institution of the suit. Respondent was set exparte and the case was posted for payment of balance court fee and for exparte evidence of petitioner on 16.02.2010. That day, according to the petitioner, he was laid up due to chickenpox and was unable to raise amount for payment of the balance court fee and pay the same on or before 16.02.2010. Hence he filed application before learned Sub Judge requesting time to deposit the balance court fee. Learned Sub Judge rejected that application and the plaint for non-payment of court fee. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1014 of 2010 for review of order dated 16.02.2010. That application is dismissed vide Ext.P3, order stating that there is no apparent error on the face of order (dated 16.02.2010) to review it. Hence this petition. Learned counsel contends that inspite of petitioner's illness and inability to raise amount before the due date being brought to the notice of learned Sub Judge by way of application that has been returned without stating reason and the request for review has been disallowed. OP(C) No.259/2010 2 3. Petitioner had filed application seeking extension of time for payment of balance court fee on 16.02.2010. That is evident from Ext.P1, order which itself says that there was an application and it was returned. True, there was an order for payment of balance court fee on 16.02.2010. But it is not as if petitioner has not stated reasons for non-payment of balance court fee within the time stipulated. Learned Principal Sub Judge appears to be under the wrong impression that there is no provision to grant extension of time and that if extension of time is granted, that would erode respect to the court. I say so because I had the misfortune of seeing a number of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of learned Sub Judge refusing to extend time for payment of balance court fee. Learned Sub Judge is reminded that Section 4A of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act itself is to extend time for deposit of balance court fee and that there is no rule that every request has to be turned down. There was no reason to reject the reasons stated by petitioner for non-payment of balance court fee within the time prescribed. Learned Sub Judge has done a wrong in disallowing the application and refusing to extend time. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances learned Sub Judge should atleast have allowed I.A.No.1014 of 2010 and reviewed order dated 16.02.2010 giving petitioner an opportunity to pay the balance court fee. On the facts pleaded before me I am persuaded to think that the circumstances warranted review of order dated 16.02.2010. OP(C) No.259/2010 3 Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: i. Ext.P3, order dismissing I.A.No.1014 of 2010 in O.S.No.197 of 2009 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam is set aside and that application will stand allowed. ii. Petitioner is granted 15 days time from this day to deposit balance court fee in the trial court. iii. On payment of balance court fee as aforesaid, learned Principal Sub Judge shall proceed with the matter as provided under law. iv. In case of non-compliance of the above direction, this petition will stand dismissed in conformation of Ext.P3, order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks