Subhaga vs Manju
2021 Latest Caselaw 1692 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                  &

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                        RFA.No.527 OF 2019

AGAINST THE    JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28-02-2019 IN OS
24/2017 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS      :

      1       SUBHAGA, AGED 62 YEARS,
              W/O. RAVEENDRAN, LOYIES VILLA,
              THATCHOD P O, VARKALA.

      2       SUSEELA, AGED 60 YEARS,
              W/O.RAJAN, ANAKKUNNEL HOUSE,
              CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM P O.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
              SRI.R.REJI
              SMT.THARA THAMBAN
              SRI.B.BIPIN
              SRI.ARUN BOSE

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT       :

              MANJU, AGED 53 YEARS,
              W/O. LATE MANOHARLAL, MAMOM, KEEZHVALAM,
              ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 104.

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.F.A No. 527 of 2019                   2




                   A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J.

                   --------------------------------------
                             R.F.A No.527 of 2019
                   --------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 15th day of January, 2021


                               JUDGMENT

A.Hariprasad, J

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent.

2. Grievance of the appellants is against the decree passed by the

Court of Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara in O.S No.24 of 2017, wherein the

plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C for non-payment of

balance court fee. It is pointed out that the appeal was filed with a delay of

180 days.

3. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal

of the impugned judgment, we are of the view that a meritorious matter

shall not be discarded at the threshold and the parties should be given an

opportunity to contest the case. It is also submitted that it is a suit for

recovery of money.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are inclined

to set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and restore the suit

to file. We also direct the appellants to pay court fee within a period of two

weeks from today.

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

amk