Kerala High Court
Sona Rasheed vs Salim S on 5 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
OP(C).No.1849 OF 2020
I.A.NO.1/2020 AND 3/2020 IN OS. NO. 473/2019 OF MUNSIFF
COURT,NEDUMANGADU
-----------
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
SONA RASHEED
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. MAHEEN, S.R.COTTAGE, PULLIPPARA,
NEDUMANGAD P.O., KARIPOOR VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, RESIDING AT THADATHARIKATHU
VEEDU, PERUMALA, PATHAMKALLU, MANCHA P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD
BY ADVS.
G.SUDHEER
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
SALIM S.
S/O.SAINULABDEEN,AMINA MANZIL, KUDIYAKONATHU PUTHEN
VEEDU, VAZHOTTUKONAM, VATTIYOOR KAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.JINU JOSEPH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.1849 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The suit which was rejected for non-payment of
balance court fee was restored to file on condoning
the delay. The said order is challenged in this
original petition by the defendant in the suit.
2. The suit is one for realisation of money.
The suit was rejected for non-payment of the
balance court fee. According to the petitioner-
defendant, there was a compromise between the
parties pending the suit and the plaint claim was
satisfied. Thereafter, without any bona fides, the
suit is attempted to be restored, is the
contention.
3. The fact that there was an attempt to settle
the disputes, is not seen disputed by the
plaintiff. According to the defendant the claim was
settled out of court and the claim satisfied,
whereas according to the plaintiff the claim
remains unsatisfied. The contention of the
O. P. (C) No.1849 of 2020
defendant-petitioner that the plaint claim has been
satisfied and that the cause of action relied on
does not survive, are matters to be urged by him in
the suit. The trial court has accepted the
explanation offered by the plaintiff and has
exercised its discretion in restoring the suit. It
cannot be found that the exercise of discretion is
perverse. There is no reason to interfere with the
order impugned.
The Original Petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed. However, I make it clear that the plea
of discharge and settlement shall be open to the
defendant to be urged in the suit.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.1849 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OA NO.473/2019
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE PRINCIPAL
MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE IN THE
HANDWRITING OF THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AT NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION
DATED 30.1.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO LIFT
ATTACHMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS
NO.473/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
NEDUMANGAD DATED 15.2.2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF TO SUB
REGISTRAR, NEDUMANGAD DATED 3.3.2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PETITION AS
IA NO.1/2020 IN OS NO.473/2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
NEDUMANGAD DATED 3.8.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.3/2020 IN OS NO.473/2019
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF
COURT, NEDUMANGAD, DATED 3.8.2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO EXT.P6 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF
COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 22.9.2020
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FIELD BY THE
PETITIONER TO EXT.P7 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF
COURT, NEDUMANAGAD DATED 9.9.2020
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.1/2020
AND IA NO.3/2020 IN OS NO.473/2019 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANAGD
DATED 30.9.2020
------------
