The single-judge Bench dismissed a petition under Section 115 CPC filed to set aside the rejection of a plaint due to non-payment of court fee, holding that remedies of review or appeal are available and no fresh cause of action exists.
None. The original petition is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
O.P.(C)No.3385 of 2018
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.521/2018 IN O.S.No.152/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR)
PETITIONER:
K.J.VARKEY, AGED 71 YEARS, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI HOUSE, MANNANAM P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO
RESPONDENT:
VIKAS FINANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, O.J.KURUVILLA, ONASSERIL HOSUE, MANNANAM P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.3385 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
Successive applications have been filed by
the petitioner who was the plaintiff in a suit, which was rejected for payment of balance court fee, attempting to get the suit restored.
2. Since the rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree, petitioner has two remedies - either to file a review or prefer an appeal. Though
there will be some delay in opting for either of the remedies at present, I am sure that the fact that the petitioner had been taking steps by filing interlocutory applications seeking to get the suit restored will definitely be taken note of in the appropriate proceedings, if any, initiated. No interference could be made in this original petition.
The original petition is accordingly, closed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
ss
O.P.(C)No.3385 of 2018
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.152/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFFS COURT, ETTUMANOOR DATED 29/6/2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA DTD 29/6/2015 SEEKING ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED 18/8/2012 BEFORE THE VIKAS FINANCE CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.152 OF 2015 DATED 1/3/2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/1/2018 IN IA 1373/2017 IN OS. 152/2015 DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A.521/2018 IN OS 152/2015 DATED 22/3/2018 SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A. 521 OF 2018 FILED IN MAY 2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/7/2018 IN IA 521/2018 IN OS 152/2015 REJECTING APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. EXHIBIT P9 THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED IN I.A. 521 OF 2018 DATED 10/7/2018 IN OS 152/2015 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTION OF PLAINT.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner seeking restoration of a plaint rejected for non-payment of court fee could file a petition under Section 115 CPC in addition to available review or appeal remedies.
K.J. VARKEY
VIKAS FINANCE CORPORATION
SATHISH NINAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
