Asokan vs The District Collector on 8 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7999 of 2006(B)


1. ASOKAN, S/O. RAMAN, MANDATHARA HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :08/08/2008

 O R D E R
                      C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                 ....................................................................
                            W.P.(C) No.7999 of 2006
                 ....................................................................
                   Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008.

                                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of

court fee of Rs.28,700/-. The petitioner had filed suit as indigent person

and the same is decreed in part. Court fee as stated in the decree is

Rs.28,700/-. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is

mistake in the computation of court fee by the civil court. If there is any

such mistake, the court is bound to set right the same and it is for the court

to decide as to who should pay the court fee in terms of Order XXXIII Rule

10 of CPC. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that decree is

passed entitling petitioner to recover the decree amount along with cost

including court fee. Since decree amount is not realised, petitioner is not

able to pay court fee is his case. E.P. 84/2006 is stated to be pending

before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. In the circumstances,

W.P. is disposed of directing the IInd Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda

to dispose of the said E.P. within a period of three months from the date of

production of copy of this judgment. From out of amount recovered in

execution proceedings, the court fee should be appropriated first by the

2

Execution Court making payment to the Tahsildar directly and thereafter,

the balance amount recovered will be payable to the decree holder i.e. the

petitioner. If correction is required in the computation of court fee,

petitioner can make application and the court will make correction. The

petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for compliance. Recovery

proceedings will remain stayed for six months from now and thereafter the

same will be closed, if amount is recovered as above. However, if petitioner

has received decree amount, then recovery can be continued against the

petitioner. The civil court will inform the developments in execution

proceedings to the concerned Tahsildar. Since W.P. was pending, delay if

any in applying for correction of the decree should be condoned by the civil

court.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms