IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(C).No.1059 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHALAKUDY
IN IA 91/2019 & IA 92/2019 IN OS 74/2015
-----
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
SHIJU
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. VARGHEESE KARIYATTY, PARAKADAVU, KURUMASSERY
VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
SMT.E.U.DHANYA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
JOY
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. PAULOSE, THAKARAKKAL (H), THUMBARASSERY,
KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O.P.(C) No.1059 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
The suit for money, being part of sale consideration, was rejected for non-payment of balance court fee. The attempt of the petitioner- plaintiff to have the suit restored back to file, by seeking for a review of the order rejecting the plaintiff, was unsuccessful, since the delay petition was dismissed. There was a delay of 761 days in filing the application.
2. Heard learned counsel on either sides.
3. The advance sale consideration claimed to have been paid is `5 lakhs, out of which the receipt of `3 lakhs is stated to have been admitted. The receipt of the remaining amount of `2 O.P.(C) No.1059 of 2020 :- 2 :-
lakhs, as claimed, is disputed. As to whether the plaintiff is entitled for return of any amounts is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit. The reason stated for non-payment of the balance court fee is financial difficulties and illness.
4. On the facts as noticed, it is only appropriate to take a lenient view and grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to have the lis decided on merits. Of course, the inconvenience caused to the respondent-defendant is liable to be compensated by way of costs. Considering the extent of the delay involved, I am of the opinion that an amount of `25,000/- would be just and proper.
In the result, the original petition is allowed. The orders impugned are set aside. The applications will stand allowed and the suit OS O.P.(C) No.1059 of 2020 :- 3 :-
774/2015 of the Munsiff's Court, Chalakudy will stand restored back to file on condition that, the petitioner-plaintiff pays an amount of `25,000/- as costs to the counsel appearing for the respondent- defendant before this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
OP(C).No.1059 OF 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS O.S.NO.774/2015 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.774/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION AS I.A.NO.91/2019 IN O.S.NO.774/2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION AS I.A.NO.92/2020 IN O.S.NO.774/2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 IN I.A.NO.91/2019 IN O.S.NO.774/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY.
EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 IN I.A.NO.92/2019 IN O.S.NO.774/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY.
-----