IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1093 of 2007(E) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2006 IN I.S 2281/06 IN OS.521/2005 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- B. VINOD, KURUMPELIL VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVOCATES MR.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI MR.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOLLAM DEVASWOM GROUP, ANANDAVALLESWARAM, KOLLAM. 3. ADDITIONAL R3 - THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 30.1.2007 IN IA 1015/06 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R3 ADVOCATE S MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, TDB FOR R1 & R2 MR. M.K.C.DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1093 of 2007(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF I.A. NO. 2281 OF 2006 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT KOLLAM DATED 12.6.2006. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2281 OF 2006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT KOLLAM DATED 17/6/2006. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No. 1093 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.521 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kollam. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 1954 of 2006 for withdrawal of suit and same was allowed by the court below. Subsequently, he filed I.A. No.2281 of 2006 requesting the court to refund one half of the court fee. The court below by Ext.P2 cryptic order, rejected the interlocutory application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 69 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is applicable and therefore refund of the one half of the Court fee should be ordered. The counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision of this court in Aravindaksha Prabhu v Shamsuddin [2003(1) KLT 644] wherein it was held that even in a case when the plaintiff makes a statement that he does not want any relief and gets his suit dismissed it will be a case where the suit is decided on admission and W.P(C)No. 1093 of 2007 -2- without investigation and the plaintiff is entitled to refund of half the court fee under Section 69 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. In view of the above legal decision, plaintiff is entitled to refund of one half of the court fee. Therefore IA No. 2281 of 2006 is allowed, Ext.P2 impugned order is set aside and civil writ petition is allowed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE rhs