IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 14981 of 2004(H)
1. M.K.JOYOTHISH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. K.BHAVANI, AGED 58 YEARS,
3. M.K.SAILESH KUMAR,
4. M.K.RUPESH KUMAR,
5. M.K.PREMKUMAR,
Vs
1. RAMACHANDRAN ALIAS THAMPI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :SRI.SATHISH NINAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :07/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.14981 of 2004
----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of June , 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P2 application submitted by the
petitioners/plaintiffs seeking review of an order rejecting the
plaint for non remittance of balance court fee was dismissed by
the learned Munsiff by Ext.P3 order. The petitioners challenge
Ext.P3 on various grounds.
2. Heard both sides. Inviting my attention to the judgment
of this court in Cochin Kazag Ltd. v. Bharath Cartons (2004
(1) KLT page 53), the learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the view of the learned Munsiff that application for
review of an order rejecting the plaint is not maintainable is
erroneous. But as rightly pointed out by Sri.Sathish Ninan, the
learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Munsiff does not
say in Ext.P3 order that there is no provision for reviewing an
order rejecting the plaint for non remittance of court fee. In fact
WPC No.14981/2004 2
Ext.P2 application was not an application for review. It is a
combined application for restoration of the suit under Order 9
Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and also for review under Order
47 Rule 1. The learned Munsiff is right in his view that an
application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 will not be
maintainable in respect of an order rejecting plaint for non
remittance of court fee since such orders are decrees. The
learned Munsiff’s view that review can be allowed only if there
are errors apparent on the face of the record also cannot be
said to be erroneous.
3. Considering the rival submissions addressed at the bar
and gauging Ext.P3 order by parameters which are applicable
while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, it is
difficult to say that Ext.P3 is so bad as to be set aside under
Article 227. At the same time, considering the maintainability of
a petition for review of an order rejecting the plaint for non
remittance of court fee as well as on considerations of substantial
justice, I am of the view that the petitioners should be granted
an opportunity to remit balance court fee and prosecute the suit.
WPC No.14981/2004 3
The petitioners are directed to remit the balance court fee within
seven days from today before the court below and file a proper
application seeking review of the order rejecting the plaint. If
such an application is received by the learned Munsiff within two
weeks from today and if it is seen that the balance court fee is
remitted within the time stipulated above, the learned Munsiff will
consider that application in the light of the judicial precedents
which may be cited by the parties and pass orders in accordance
with law at the earliest, not withstanding Ext.P3.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
Dpk