IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).NO. 11131 OF 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1579 /2009 IN OS.422/2008 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VILASINI, AGED 66 YRS, W/O.THANKAPPAN, SHANMUGHA NIVAS, VEE VEE GRAMAM, CHERTHALA THEKKU MURI, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THANKAPPAN, AGED 74 YRS., S/O.KUNJANANTHA, VATTAMME VELIYIL, CHERTHALA THEKKU MURI, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ABOOBAKKER, AGED ABOUT 62 YRS., S/O.PAREETHUKUNJU, CHEMMARAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY MURI, MANNANCHERRI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ABDUL KHADER KUNJU NAINA, AGED 51 YRS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN NAINA, MUTTATHUSSERRIL HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY MURI, MANNANCHERRI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.11131 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T On the strength of an agreement dated 09.09.1996 respondents sued the petitioners for a decree for specific performance of sale of property. Petitioners resisted the suit contending inter alia that the suit is barred by limitation. After issues were framed on 27.01.2009 case was posted on 12.06.2009, 09.07.2009 and then on 01.08.2009 for steps and payment of balance court fee. As balance of court fee was not paid on 01.08.2009 learned Sub Judge rejected the plaint. Respondents filed I.A. No.1579 of 2009 for review of the order rejecting the plaint. That application was allowed by Ext.P6, order dated 15.02.2010. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of petitioners/defendants. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record so that a review can be sustained. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain v. Motilal (2009 [3] KLT SN 65 (Case W.P(C) No.11131 of 2010 -: 2 :- No.63) where the circumstances when court could review a order is stated. 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel also that while I.A. No.1579 of 2009 was pending respondents paid the balance court fee and that was received by the court below. Challenge is that in the absence of any error apparent on the face of record court below was not justified in allowing the application for review. There can be no doubt that an order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of balance court fee is subject to a review as held by this Court in Felix v. Municipal Secretary (2006 [4] KLT SN 31 (Case No.46). Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that apart from errors apparent on the face of the record, court is competent to order review for any other sufficient reason though decisions on the point say the expression 'any other sufficient reason' must be read as ejusdem generis. Here is a case where respondents were not bale to remit the balance court fee for the reasons stated in the I.A. Court below was impressed by the grounds stated and found it as sufficient reason for review of the order rejecting the plaint. I do not find any manifest injustice done by the court below in allowing the application for review. The Supreme Court in Abdul Razack v. W.P(C) No.11131 of 2010 -: 3 :- Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010 [1] KLT SN 33 (Case No.42) has stated in which all circumstances the High Court can interfere with an order of the trail court be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. On going through the order under challenge I am not satisfied that the impugned order is manifestly unjust or is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the court below so that this Court has to interfere either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counsel for petitioners contends that the suit itself is barred by limitation since it was filed 11 years after the agreement for sale. That certainly is not a matter to be considered at this stage in the light of what I have stated above. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. It is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv