Disposed

C.R.Lopez v. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016RFA/563/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reopened an appeal rejected for non-payment of court fee, setting aside the rejection on merits and resurrecting the underlying suit conditional upon payment of costs within one month. Dismissed the appeal if conditions failed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment setting aside the appeal rejected for non-payment of court fee is set aside; suit resurrected on payment of costs.

C.R.Lopez Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

RFA.No. 563 of 2005 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS 428/1999 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM DATED 18-08-2001

¶7

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

C.R.LOPEZ, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SILMAN MANUFACTURING CO., 42/1040, POWER HOUSE ROAD, P.B.NO.19941, COCHIN-18.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶11

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., 1ST FLOOR, CHANDRIKA BHAVAN, COCHIN - 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH

¶13

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

V. CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶15

R.F.A. NO. 563 OF 2005

¶16

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2016

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Chitambaresh, J.

¶19

An order rejecting a plaint for non payment of the balance court fee is impugned. The same is a deemed decree going by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is one for damages by the insured against the insurer. The inability to muster the necessary money to pay the balance court fee is the reason stated.

¶20

We do feel that an opportunity should be afforded to the appellant to have his case disposed of on merits. There is ofcourse some laches on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the appeal. The balance court fee was not paid and the appeal was also belated. Therefore the impugned judgment rejecting the plaint is set aside subject to the following conditions.

¶21

(i) The appellant shall pay a sum of `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the counsel for the respondent insurer.

¶22

¶23

RFA No. 563/2005

¶24

(ii) The costs shall be paid within a period of one month from today.

¶25

(iii) The suit in O.S. No. 428/1999 shall stand resurrected

¶26

on the payment of costs within the time stipulated.

¶27

(iv) The appeal will stand dismissed in case the appellant fails to comply with the conditions above.

¶28

The Appeal is disposed of.

¶29

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶30

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶31

ncd

C.R.Lopez v. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Lopez v. the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achuthan Vs Ammu

P.Geetha Devi Vs Kottarath Suresh Kumar & Another

Gunavardhanan Vs Sainaba Abdul Rahman

State of Kerala Vs D.Bose

State Vs Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

K.J.Rosamma Vs Kannamkara Mathew