IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 13380 OF 2007(P) -------------------------- {OS.100/2005 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSSY, S/O JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANAKKAD HOUSE, AT CHERAI IN PALLIPURAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NADESAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., KUZIPPILLY BUS STOP (EAST), KOCHI TALUK (WORKING IN KERALA POLICE DEPARTMENT). ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13380 of 2007 :: 2 :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.No.100/2005 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NORTH PARAVUR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2005 OF THE MUNSIFF, NORTH PARAVUR IN O.S.No.100/2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF, NORTH PARAVUR IN I.A.NO.740/2006 IN O.S.No.100/2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF, NORTH PARAVUR IN I.A.NO.900/2006 IN O.S.No.100/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13380 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.100/05 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, N.Parur challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the learned Munsiff rejecting his review petition and also the petition for condonation of delay in moving for review of an order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of the court fee payable on the suit claim. 2. The above suit was one for money based on a promissory note in which at the time of the institution 1/10th of the Court fee alone was paid on the suit claim as per Section 4A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. After the written statement was filed by the defendant resisting the suit claim and issues settled, the court directed for deposit of the balance court fee within the time ordered. The balance court fee not being paid, the suit was rejected vide Ext.P2 order. Later, the plaintiff moved an application W.P.(C) No.13380 of 2007 :: 2 :: for reviewing Ext.P2 order with a petition to condone delay of 284 days. 3. Notice given. The respondent resisted that application filing a counter in the delay petition. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the delay petition vide Ext.P3 order and consequently the petition for review was also rejected vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I heard the counsel on both sides. 5. Perusing the orders passed by the court below, with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that the view expressed by the court below that a review petition is not maintainable when the suit has been dismissed for non- payment of the balance court fee ordered within the W.P.(C) No.13380 of 2007 :: 3 :: time fixed by the court is not correct. So far as the cause shown for condonation of delay by the plaintiff, the court below has concluded that no sufficient cause was made out since the condonation of delay as canvassed was only for 284 days but the actual delay was 300 days counted from the date of dismissal of the suit for non-payment of the balance court fee. True, the plaintiff has to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in moving the review petition. But in examining the question whether there was sufficient cause, the courts have been following the liberal approach. The existence of a court is for adjudication of disputes on merits rather than dismissal or rejection of a claim of technical grounds. Anyhow, the court below, it is seen from Ext.P3 order, has not adverted to the cause shown by the plaintiff nor the challenges/objections raised by the respondent disputing the cause pleaded for condonation to review W.P.(C) No.13380 of 2007 :: 4 :: the order dismissing the suit. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find the plaintiff can be provided one more opportunity to pay the balance court fee to have a decision on merits subject to terms. The injury likely to be suffered by the respondent in restoring the suit after setting aside the dismissal of the suit has to be taken into account. So much so, the plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- as cost to the respondent as a condition precedent for setting aside the order of dismissal and restoration of his suit. Cost ordered shall be paid to the counsel for the respondent before this court on or before 24.5.2010. 7. Exts.P2 and P3 shall stand set aside and the review petition as also the petition for condonation of delay shall stand allowed and also the restoration of the suit reversing the order of its dismissal passed by the court below if cost is paid, as directed above. In the W.P.(C) No.13380 of 2007 :: 5 :: event of cost paid and suit restored the plaintiff shall pay the balance court fee on the suit claim within three weeks from 24.5.2010. For report post on 25.5.2010. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//