IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 1253 of 2005(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 743/2004 IN AS.320/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- AMINA, AGED 57, W/O.UMMER HAJI, THORAKKATIL HOUSE, ALANALLUR III, VILLAGE, EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.H.SIVARAMAN MR.S.M.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS: -------------------------- 1. HYDRU, AGED 62, S/O.ARIPPAN ALAVI, EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. ALI, 57, S/O.CHAKUPURIKIL, KUNHIPPA, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. KUNHAN, 52, S/O.THORKATIL ONAM PARIYANI RESIDING DO. DO. 4. AYISHA, 37, W/O.LATE POOVATHUMPARAMBU ABBAS, RESIDING AT DO. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1253 of 2005 - D --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.130 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. Suit was one for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. After trial, suit was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the suit, petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal as A.S.No.320 of 2003 before the District Court, Palakkad. Judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the case remanded for fresh consideration. Refund of court fee was not allowed by the judgment. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for review seeking refund of one half the court fee paid on the appeal. That review petition was dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Remand of the case setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court was ordered reversing dismissal of the suit for insufficiency of evidence let in to substantiate the suit C.R.P.No.1253 of 2005 - D 2 claim. By the remand plaintiff was extended an opportunity to substantiate the suit claim by satisfactory evidence. When a remand is made plaintiff as of right cannot demand for refund of court fee. It is the discretion of the court taking into account the facts and circumstances presented whether refund of court fee has to be ordered or not. In the given facts of the case, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-