Kerala High Court
Raju V vs Ramachandran T.K on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 275 OF 2015
OS 406/2012 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/S:
RAJU V
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.VELU, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, MUTHUKULAM
VILLAGE, WARD NO.11, HOUSE NO.430, MUTHUKULAM
PANCHAYATH, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.SAJU J PANICKER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RAMACHANDRAN T.K.
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.KOCHUKUNJU VAIDYAN, KOMALEZHATHU,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, WARD NO.11, HOUSE
NO.472, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA
(EXPIRED).
2 REMAYAMMA @ MONY
S/O.KOCHUKUNJU VAIDYAN, KOMALEZHATHU,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, WARD NO.11, HOUSE
NO.472, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA
(ADDL. D2).
BY ADV SRI.BASANT BALAJI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No.275 of 2015
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of September, 2021
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.406
of 2012 pending on the files of the Sub court,
Karunagappally. The suit is filed seeking return
of the advance amount of Rs.11,53,000/- with 12%
interest from the defendant, charged upon all his
assets, including the plaint schedule property.
The suit was posted on 04.07.2013 for payment of
balance court fee, but the court fee was not
remitted. Again, on 13.06.2014, the court
directed payment of balance court fee before the
next posting date and posted the case to
27.06.2014 for verification. The petitioner was
failed to remit the balance court fee within the
time granted, the plaint was rejected.
Immediately, petitioner paid the balance court
fee and filed I.A.No.794 of 2014 for review of
O.P.(C) No.275 of 2015
the order rejecting the plaint. By the impugned
Ext.P7 order, the court below allowed the review
application, subject to the petitioner remitting
cost of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner remitted the
cost and the suit has been restored to file.
This original petition is filed, aggrieved by the
exorbitant amount imposed as cost and an
observation in the order, touching upon the
merits of the petitioner's case.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the trial court was not imposing
an exorbitant amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs. It
is contended that, though there was a direction
on 04.07.2013 to pay balance court fees, there
was no such insistence on the subsequent posting
dates and the subsequent direction was only on
13.06.2014. Even though the petitioner failed to
remit court fees within the time granted on that
O.P.(C) No.275 of 2015
date, the payment was effected immediately
thereafter and an application filed for review of
the order. At any rate, the observation in
paragraph 14 of the impugned order was uncalled
for and illegal.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent
contended that, even without the court specifying
any date, the petitioner was bound to pay the
balance court fee. Having failed to remit the
court fee even after repeated directions by the
trial court, it is open for the petitioner to
challenge the order imposing costs.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel on
either side and having gone through the order
impugned, I find that the learned Sub Judge has
made it clear that, in the event of the suit
being decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the
cost will be adjusted towards the decree debt. In
O.P.(C) No.275 of 2015
the light of that safeguard and the petitioner
having remitted the cost as directed, I am not
inclined to interfere with the direction. At the
same time, I find substantial merit in the
contention of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the observation in paragraph 14
of the judgment was unwarranted and would
prejudice the petitioner in the contest of the
suit. The objectionable observation is extracted
hereunder for easy reference;
"14....... So this petition is allowed on
cost, specifying that in the final stage,
defendants can very well rely upon the factum of
non-payment of court fee for a period of about
one year, to contend that the plaintiff is a
person who was not able to raise the balance sale
consideration within the time stipulated in the
alleged contract."
Having decided to review the order by imposing
cost, the learned Sub Judge committed a patent
illegality in making the above observation. The
O.P.(C) No.275 of 2015
observation, if not interfered with, will
prejudice the petitioner in the conduct of his
suit.
In the result, the original petition is
disposed of, affirming the direction to pay cost
of Rs.25,000/- and deleting the observation in
paragraph 14 of the order extracted above.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/07.09.2021
O.P.(C) No.275 of 2015
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 275/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE
PLAINT IN OS 406/2012 OF THE SUB
COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN IA 1364/2012 IN OS 406/2012.
EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF
THEI.A.1037/2013 IN OS 406/2012.
EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
REJECTING THE PLAINT.
EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE
REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF.
EXHIBIT P6. THE TRUE COPY OF
I.A.1154/2014 IN OS 406/2012.
EXHIBIT P7. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN I.A.NO.794/2014 AND
I.A.NO.1154/2014 IN O.S.O.406/2012.
EXHIBIT P8. THE TRUE COPY OF THE B
DIARY IN O.S.NO.406/2012.
