IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 RFA.No. 401 of 2007() --------------------- OS.168/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- THOMAS @ M.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT MULLAKARAYIL HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4: -------------------------------- 1. P.K.JOSEPH, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (DIED) 2. BABY KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SMT.RAICHAL JOSEPH, W/O.V.J.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, VARAPETTI VEEDU, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THOMAS CHIRAYIL, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8: 5.MERCY JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.K.JOSEPH, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6.SANDEEP, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.K.JOSEPH, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. RFA.401/07 7.SANGEETH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.K.JOSEH, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8.SAJEEV, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.K.JOSEPH, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.5.2010 IN I.A.NO.945/2008. ADV. SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR FOR R4 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.F.A.NO.401 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant filed a suit for settlement of accounts. After completion of pleadings, the court below framed issues on 9.6.2006 and adjourned the case to 13.7.2006 for payment of balance court fee. On that day, the plaint was rejected since the balance court fee was not remitted. Hence, this appeal. 2. The limited plea of the appellant is that though the case was adjourned from 9.6.2006 to 13.7.2006, the noting by the office of his Advocate was that the case was adjourned to 11.8.2006. We find that on 11.8.2006, the appellant had applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree. Obviously, therefore, we are inclined to take the view that the plea of the appellant is bona fide. Under such circumstances, we find it RFA.401/07 2 justifiable that the rejection of the plaint be set aside and the matter remitted to enable the plaintiff to pay the balance court fee. This will, however, be on terms. In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order rejecting the plaint. The court below will take back the plaint and proceed with it in accordance with law, provided, the appellant pays the balance court fee within a period of three weeks from now and pays an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) to the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, who alone appears to contest the matter, within a period of two weeks. Issue copy urgently. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp