OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 243/2014 OF PRINCIPAL SUB
COURT , TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER/S:
T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. LATE SRI. T.P KRISHNAN, 'SARANAGATHI', T.C.
37/1070, WEST STREET, FORT P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023.
BY ADVS.
M.BALAGOVINDAN
A.ANOOP
LAL KUMAR N.
RESPONDENT/S:
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695043.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed to set aside Exts.P3 and P4 orders to the extent it deducts 7% from the court fee paid by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.243/2014 before the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a decree for damages against the defendant. Pending the suit, the parties to the suit were referred for mediation and their disputes were settled as per the mediation agreement. The Court below, on the basis of the mediation agreement, decreed the suit and ordered the refund of the court fee. The petitioner had filed Ext.P2, seeking refund of the court fee of Rs.8,18,400/-. However, the Court below has ordered only the refund of Rs.7,61,112/-, as evidenced from Exts.P3 and P4 certificates. The petitioner assailed Exts.P3 and P4 before this Court by OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022 3 filing WP(C) No.42087/2018. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, relegated the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. Hence, the original petition. The petitioner contends that deduction of 7% of the total court fee by the respondent - the District Collector - is unsustainable in law and is against Section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Hence, Exts.P3 and P4 may be set aside, to the extent of deducting 7% from the total court fee paid by the petitioner.
3. Heard; Sri.M.Balagovindan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
4. This Court in Mithun T. Abraham vs. Sub Court of Judicature and others [ILR 2022 (2) Kerala 699] has, in a case of identical nature, held that deduction of 7% court fee by the Government by OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022 4 placing reliance on the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1960 is unsustainable in law. I completely agree with the ratio decidendi in Mithun T. Abraham (supra).
5. As a case at hand is identical to the case in Mithun T. Abraham (supra), I allow this original petition, by setting aside the deduction of 7% from the total court fee paid by the petitioner.
In the result, the original petition is allowed by ordering the respondent to refund the entire court fee paid by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/14.16.22 OP(C) NO. 1015 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1015/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.
243/2014 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.03.2018. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION C.F. NO.
2802/2018 IN O.S. 243/2014 DATED 26.03.2018.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 21.05.2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED SUB JUDGE DATED 21.05.2018. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 42087/2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT, DATED 05.11.2021.