IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1007 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.4382/2007 IN CMCP.70/2004 IN R.F.A..../04 Dated 10/12/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/APPELLANT --------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.VATTAPPARA ULAHANNAN INJAKUNDU DESOM, MUPLIYAM VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT --------------- 1. V.V.SASEENDRAN,PRASANNA BHAVAN ANTHIKKAD P.O., KARUNAGAPPILLY DESOM PRESENT ADDRESS: V.SASIDHARAN, CONTRACTOR CHIMMINI DAM ESTATE, POST CHIMMINI DAM ALAGAPPANAGAR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIVISION, CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 1812/2008 & R.P. 1007/2008 IN CMC NO. 70/2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. C.M. Appln. 1812/2008 is filed seeking for condonation of the delay caused in filing the Review Petition. It is supported by an affidavit. The appeal was rejected for non payment of court fee within the extended time. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for further enlargement of time which was dismissed since our order dated 10.12.2007 was a self working order. In the mean time, the delay occurred. A counter affidavit is filed opposing the prayer. We have considered the averments made in the petition as well as in the counter affidavit and heard both sides. 2. Condonation of delay is certainly a matter of discretion and what should be looked into is as to whether the party was diligent in prosecuting the matter. From the facts, it can be seen that though we have allowed extension of time by three weeks from 10.12.2007 with an observation that in case court fee is not paid within the extended time, the appeal will stand rejected, the petitioner had moved an application for enlargement of time C.M. APPLN. 1812/08 & R.P. 1007/08 :2: and it is only because of the said application dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable, that the present review is filed. This will show that the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting the matter. 3. In the circumstances, we condone the delay. The review Petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 10.12.2008 since it is a self working order and the petitioner wants further enlargement of time. The question is whether the reason for not remitting the court fee within the allowed time is willful, deliberate or is it a case where there is sufficient reason for non-remittance of the court fee within the period allowed. In this connection, petitioner has averred that all his financial resources has been lost because of the loss in the business and he could not raise the court fee of an amount of Rs. 98,300/- and he had to raise the said amount by approaching his friends for help. Of course, these averments are not supported by any further material on record to show as to how this amount was raised from his friends etc. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the petitioner was adopting the same tactics in the court below also and he had filed an application as an indigent person which was dismissed and thereafter he paid the court fee and decided the matter, which was repeated in the appellate stage also. C.M. APPLN. 1812/08 & R.P. 1007/08 :3: 5. The contention of the respondent cannot be said to be without any force. At the same time, we consider that since the appeal has not been disposed of on merits and it has been rejected only on the ground of non payment of court fee and the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay the same, a lenient view is taken on terms. Accordingly, we direct that in case the full balance court fee is paid by the next working day, namely, 17.11.2008 and also an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) towards cost, the review will stand allowed and the time for payment of court fee will stand extended up to 17.11.2008, failing which this review petition will stand dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V.K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-