IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19399 of 2010(O) -------------------------- O.P.(ARBITRATION) NO...........OF 2010 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BASHEERUDHEEN, S/O.MUHAMMAD, THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, THEKKENKUTTOOR P.O., THIROOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NARAYANANAN, S/O.KARUPPAN, VELLILATH HOUSE, THEKKENKUTTOOR P.O., THIROOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PAREEKUTTY, S/O.MUHAMMAD, PADIKKAPURAI HOUSE, THEKKENKUTTOOR P.O., THIROOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD., MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (H.P.DEPT.) AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAJU P.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19399 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners filed Original Petition (Arbitration) in the court of learned District Judge, Thrissur under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) challenging award passed by the Arbitrator. Grievance of petitioners is that the petition has been returned for the following reasons: “i. Court fee paid insufficient. ii. Dockets not legible.” 2. Contention of the petitioner is that though under Schedule II, Article 11(i) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (for short, “the Court Fees Act”) Original Petition not otherwise provided for and filed in the District Court is liable to be paid court fee of Rs.50/- only, petitioners have paid Rs.100/- and hence there is no defect in payment of court fee. Learned counsel contended that it is not stated in what way court fee paid is insufficient and what further amount the petitioners required to pay. Petitioners therefore are unable to understand what exactly is the defect in payment of court fee. Learned counsel has expressed willingness to pay additional court fee if required as per law. 3. From the order under challenge I am not able to find what exactly is WP(C) No.19399/2010 2 the insufficiency in the court fee already paid. Nor is it clear what further amount and under what provision of law additional court fee is required. In the circumstances the only course open to me is to set aside the order and remand the matter to the court of learned District Judge with direction to hear the counsel for petitioner before deciding whether the court fee paid is insufficient. In case the court comes to the conclusion that court fee paid is insufficient it shall state what further amount is payable by the petitioner and under what provision of law and give petitioner opportunity to cure the defect. Writ Petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned District Judge, Thrissur to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners in the light of the observations made above. Petitioners shall appear in the court below on 20.07.2010. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks