M.Abdul Muthalif vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.Abdul Muthalif vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19666 of 2010(O)


1. M.ABDUL MUTHALIF, AGED 60 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING, PWD BH

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD

6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD NH SECTION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.H.B.SHENOY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :25/06/2010

 O R D E R
                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) Nos.19665 & 19666 of 2010
                           --------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010.

                                     JUDGMENT

These Writ Petitions are filed in challenge of separate orders passed by

learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam in I.A.Nos.1047 of 2010 and 1046 of 2010

in O.S.Nos.338 of 2009 and 339 of 2009 respectively of that court. Petitioner

filed the said suits for realization of money under two work contracts.

Respondents did appear in court but did not file written statements and hence

were set exparte on 16.01.2010. Cases were posted to 16.02.2010 for payment

of balance court fee. In the meantime respondents filed I.A.Nos.531 of 2010 and

532 of 2010 to set aside the exparte orders against them. On 16.02.2010

petitioner sought time for payment of balance court fee. Learned Sub Judge

dismissed I.A.Nos.531 of 2010 and 532 of 2010 the same day and for the reason

of non-payment of balance court fee the plaints were rejected. Petitioner with

the hope that he will be able to resurrect the cases filed I.A.Nos.1047 of 2010

and 1046 of 2010 respectively stating reasons for non-payment of balance court

fee on or before 16.02.2010. Learned Sub Judge passed the following order on

the said applications

“There is no apparent error on the face of the

order to review it. Hence dismissed.”

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner had in the affidavits in

support of applications stated circumstances under which he could not pay

WP(C) Nos.19665 & 19666/2010

2

balance court fee before 16.02.2010 but without application of mind learned Sub

Judge has dismissed the said applications. For the purpose of disposal of these

Writ Petitions I have heard learned Government Pleader who took notice for

respondents though, as revealed from the records respondents have been set

exparte by the learned Sub Judge and that order remain in force.

2. Question is whether learned Sub Judge was correct in dismissing

the applications for review. As I stated, those applications are dismissed by a

non-speaking order stating that there is no error apparent on the face of order.

It is not clear whether the learned Sub Judge has adverted to the reasons stated

by petitioner in paragraph No.3 of the affidavits in support of the applications for

review. I have gone through the affidavits of petitioner where reason is stated.

According to the petitioner, following the exparte order against the respondent on

16.02.2010 the case was posted on 16.02.2010 for payment of balance court

fee but before that day learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent

in the court below served on counsel for petitioner a copy of application to set

aside the exparte order and petitioner, under the impression that the said

application is coming up for hearing on 16.02.2010 did not raise the balance

court fee. During the roll call on 16.02.2010 it was revealed that applications

filed by the respondent were held up due to some defect. Thereon counsel for

petitioner requested learned Sub Judge to grant some time for payment of

balance court fee. Learned Sub Judge kept the matter aside probably awaiting

arrival of applications filed by the respondent after curing defects. During the

afternoon session counsel for petitioner got information that applications

WP(C) Nos.19665 & 19666/2010

3

preferred by the respondent were dismissed and the plaints also were rejected.

Hence, petitioner sought for review of the order.

3. No doubt, there may not be any error apparent on the face of

record so far as the order rejecting plaints is concerned. Order 47 Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) provides for review on other

grounds also. Ofcourse each case should be decided on the facts of that case.

When a plaint is rejected for non-payment of balance court fee, an application for

review is permissible. Going through the affidavit of petitioner I am satisfied that

petitioner has shown sufficient reason for non-payment of balance court fee on

the day specified. I do not find reason to think that having claimed a huge

amount from the respondent on the strength of work contract admittedly

entrusted to the petitioner and his having paid 1/10th of the court fee payable at

the time of filing of the plaint in both the cases, he would refuse to pay the

balance court fee within the time specified and invite a dismissal of the suits by

which he would not stand to gain. These aspects were not considered by the

leaned Sub Judge. Having regard to the facts and circumstances placed before

me I am inclined to hold that learned Sub Judge was not justified in dismissing

the applications for review. Petitioners ought to have been given an

opportunity to resurrect the plaints which were rejected for non-payment of

balance court fee.

Resultantly these Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders on

I.A.No.1047 in O.S.No.338 of 2009 and I.A.No.1046 of 2010 in O.S.No.339 of

2009 passed by learned Principal Sub Judge, Kollam. Those applications are

WP(C) Nos.19665 & 19666/2010

4

allowed. Petitioner in both the cases will get three weeks time from this day for

payment of balance court fee on the plaint in both the cases. Petitioner shall

appear in the court below on 16.07.2010.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *