Allowed

Mrs.Pathumabi v. Mrs.Sudha Bhaskaran

Kerala HC17 Aug 2010AS/366/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a plaint due to non-payment of court fee. It set aside the lower court's judgment, permitted the plaintiff to pay the balance fee, and remitted the matter for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment of lower court set aside; plaintiff permitted to pay balance court fee; matter remitted for disposal on merits.

Mrs.Pathumabi Vs Mrs.Sudha Bhaskaran — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

AS.No. 366 of 1998(B)

¶6

¶7

OS.292/1995 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶9

MRS. PATHUMABI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.P. MOIDEEN, SOFIA MANZIL, CHULLIKAD PARAMBA, PUTHIYAPALAM, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAIJU BABU SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

MRS. SUDHA BHASKARAN, W/O. LATE P. BHASKARAN.

¶13

MR. SANOJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. LATE P. BHASKARAN.

¶14

SABIJA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. LATE P. BASKARAN.

¶15

SATU (MINOR), S/O. LATE P. BHASKARAN, BY HIS GUARDIAN MRS. SUDHA BHASKARAN.

¶16

(ALL RESIDING AT THATTANKUNNU PARAMBU, PUTHYAPALAM, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE.)

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR

¶18

SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR

¶19

THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶20

ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶23

A.S. No. 366 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = == =

¶24

DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010.

¶25

This is an appeal preferred against the order of the court below rejecting the plaint for non payment of court fee. Order VII Rule 11 which gives the power to the court to reject the plaint also makes it clear that the rejection of a plaint would amount to a decree which is appealable. It is stated that due to reasons beyond control, the plaintiff was not able to pay the court fee. Technicality shall not defeat justice and therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment of the court below and directing her to pay the court fee. The court below shall thereafter, dispose of the matter on merits. There has been a delay of almost twelve years and the court below has to bear in mind whether interest has to be given for this prolonged period which had occasioned on account of the negligence of the plaintiff in the suit.

¶26

Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration by permitting the plaintiff to pay the balance court fee. After giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, ie. after filing of the

¶27

A.S. 366/1998

¶28

¶29

written statement, the court below shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on

¶30

24.9.2010.

¶31

M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE)

KNC/-

A.S. 366/1998

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶36

A.S. No. 366 OF 1998

¶37

DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2010.

¶38

J U D G M E N T

Mrs.Pathumabi v. Mrs.Sudha Bhaskaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Pathumabi v. Mrs.Sudha Bhaskaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleem @ Abbasali P.M. Vs N.K.Anu

T.a.Manikkam Vs Vayalil Chirutha

M/S.Carbon Dioxide Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Kerala Automobiles

The Dfo, Vazhachal Divn. Vs Premadasan

Sinto Vs C.P.Yohannan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Ashokan