IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 RFA.No. 475 of 2011() --------------------- OS.41/2008 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- K.R.SAJAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KANNIPPURATH CHALIL, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THERUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA-688524. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. SHAJU THOMAS S/O.THOMAS, ARAKKAPARAMBIL, CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA- 688524. 2. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY N.ARUNKUMAR S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, JUNIOR OFFICER (LEGAL), H.D.F.C. HOUSE, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM,PIN 682 016. ADV. SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH FOR R1 SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No. 475 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The appeal is filed against the judgment of the Court below by which the Court has rejected the suit for non-payment of the balance Court fee. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the first respondent. Though served, there is no appearance for the second respondent. 3. Issues were settled on 4.8.2010. Learned counsel for the first respondent would point out that the matter was posted for payment of balance court fee on 6.11.2010. Thereafter, according to the appellant, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1348 of 2010 for R.F.A. No. 475 of 2011 :2: enlargement of time, which was allowed and posted to 19.2.2011 for payment of balance court fee. According to the appellant, the matter was further posted to 28.2.2011 and 15.6.2011. According to the appellant, he was diligently prosecuting the suit and did not pay the balance court fee in time due to the offer made by the respondent through the mediators. It was also submitted that the appellant was laid up on 28.2.2011. Of course learned counsel for the respondent would point out that when the matter came up on 28.2.2011, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that balance court fee was being paid and the court below recorded the same and posted the matter to 15.6.2011. The endorsement in the Court below would show that the balance court fee is paid and for steps, it is submitted. 4. In the interest of justice, we feel the appellant should be given an opportunity to pay the balance court fee. We allow the Appeal and the judgment of the Court below will stand set aside on condition that the appellant will pay the balance court fee on or R.F.A. No. 475 of 2011 :3: before 30.9.2011 and further he pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost, directly to the counsel appearing for the first respondent in this Court and produce a memo to that effect before 22.9.2011. sd/ K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/ R.F.A.475/2011 “Read communication dated 10.6.2015 from the Sub Judge, Cherthala stating that balance court fee was not paid by the appellant/plaintiff in O.S. No.41/2008 of that Court in terms of the directions in the judgment dated 07.09.2011 in R.F.A. No.475/2011 and that the judgment was issued as a conditional order and if balance court fee has not been paid, the court below will be at liberty to reject the plaint and act accordingly in accordance with law”, vide order dated 26.06.2015 in R.F.A.No.475/2011. Sd/ Registrar (Judicial) R.F.A. No. 475 of 2011 :4: