IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 823 of 2005(W)
1. P.U.VARGHESE, PALAKUNNEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
3. C.KHALID, AGENT TO THE OFFICIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/07/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
....................................................................
W.P.(C) No.823 of 2005
....................................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of
court fee payable by the petitioner who filed the suit as indigent person.
The suit is decreed and according to the decree, petitioner is entitled to
recover cost including court fee. However, Order XXXIII Rule 10 C.P.C.
makes it mandatory for the court to pass order as to who should pay the
court fee in a suit filed by a person as an indigent person. In this case the
court has passed decree entitling the petitioner to recover the court fee along
with other costs. Consequently it implies that petitioner is liable to pay
court fee after recovering it from the defendant. However, at the time of
filing W.P. in 2005, petitioner has stated that E.P. was being filed. The
W.P. is therefore disposed of directing the execution court to recover court
fee in execution proceedings and authorise remittance to the second
respondent and release the balance to the petitioner i.e. the decree holder.
However, if amount could not be recovered, then the court will have to
decide whether petitioner is incidentally liable to pay court fee under Order
XXXIII Rule 10. The execution court is directed to pass final orders within
2
a period of six months from now. Recovery proceedings will be stayed for
six months and thereafter recovery will be based on civil court orders in the
execution proceedings as stated above.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms