IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21773 of 2009(O)
1. SATISH C.DUTT, S/O. V.S.GOVINDAL DUTT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. J.VILASINI AMMA, W/O.LATE SIVASANKARA
... Respondent
2. DR.S.P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARA
3. S.THULASIDHARAN, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARA
4. S.GANGADHARAN, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARA
5. S.SREEDHARAN, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARA
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.21773 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“To direct the I Additional Subordinate Judges
Court, Thiruvananthapuram to extend the time for
payment of balance court fees in O.S.No.236 of 2007 till
the expiry of 15 days from the disposal of Ext.P3 I.A.”
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.236 of 2007 on the
file of the I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one
for specific performance of an agreement for sale and the
respondents are the defendants. Defendants resisted the suit claim
filing a written statement, and pursuant thereto the plaintiffs moved
an application for raising an additional issue whether there was part
performance of the contract. On the basis of the issue settled
previously, the court directed the plaintiff to pay the balance court
fee payable on the suit claim. Plaintiff applied for extention of time.
Court granted time up to 5.8.2009. Since the petition filed for
rasing additional issue was not considered and raising a grievance
that the time provided for payment of balance court fee was not
sufficient, the petitioner had filed this writ petition seeking the
W.P.(C).No.21773 of 2009 – O
2
aforementioned relief invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested
with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
4. Having regard tot he submissions made and taking note
of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or
illegality in the order passed by the court below in fixing the time
limit for payment of the court fee. But all the same, I find that one
more opportunity can be extended to the plaintiff to pay the
balance court fee within the time extended, so that the plaintiff can
get a decision in the suit on merits. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the balance court fee due on the suit claim
will be paid on or before 30.9.2009. It is ordered that the time
granted by the court for payment of balance court fee shall stand
extended up to 30.9.2009.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-