Allowed

Kmlm Chits India Ltd. v. Shijomon @ Shijomon

Kerala HC18 Dec 2018OP(C)/482/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restored a civil suit to file set aside an impugned order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court fee. The High Court held the plaintiff had sought time to remit fees, which was appropriate to grant, and the petitioner subsequently paid the balance amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; suit O.S.No.117/2013 restored to file; lower court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Kmlm Chits India Ltd. Vs Shijomon @ Shijomon — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

O.P.(C)No.482 of 2018

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.70/2018 IN O.S.No.117/2013 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA)

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

KMLM CHITS INDIA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, MATHEWSONS BUILDING, KALOOR, COCHIN - 17, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, JOSEKUTTY XAVIER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.XAVIER, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MANAGER OF THE COMPANY, RAJESHKUMAR R., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.A.K.VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., CALICUT - 673 571.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SHIJOMON @ SIJOMON, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.C.JOSEPH, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 577.

¶12

2 P.C.JOSEPH, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.CHANDY, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 577.

¶13

3 SHINTO JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.C.JOSEPH, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 577.

¶14

O.P.(C)No.482 of 2018

¶15

¶16

4 SAJI JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, KANNANKALLEL HOUSE, VETTILAPARA KARA, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN - 686 692.

¶17

5 SIMI SAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SAJI JOSE, KANNANKALLEL HOUSE, VETTILAPARA KARA, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN - 686 692.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

¶19

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O.P.(C)No.482 of 2018

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The suit for recovery of money was rejected for non-payment of balance court fee. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit is before this court.

¶24

2. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.953/2017 seeking time for remitting the balance court fee. The said application was dismissed and consequently the plaint was rejected. The petitioner filed review petition as

¶25

R.P.No.70/2018, seeking review. As per the impugned order, the same was also dismissed.

¶26

3. The balance court fee payable was Rs.3,59,776.80. To raise that much amount, the petitioner needed a months time. It is accordingly that he sought for time for remitting the balance court fee.

¶27

I am of the opinion that, the time as sought

¶28

O.P.(C)No.482 of 2018

¶29

¶30

for could have been granted by the court below. The petitioner has since paid the balance court

¶31

fee also. In the said circumstances, it is only appropriate that the suit is restored to file and is disposed of on merits.

¶32

In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The suit O.S.No.117/2013 will stand restored to file. The court below shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶33

The original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

O.P.(C)No.482 of 2018

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1.

¶43

TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.953/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.117/2013 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2.

¶45

TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO.70/2018 IN O.S.117/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶46

EXHIBIT P3.

¶47

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2018 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.70/2018 IN O.S.NO.117/2013 PASSED BY THE SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.

Kmlm Chits India Ltd. v. Shijomon @ Shijomon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kmlm Chits India Ltd. v. Shijomon @ Shijomon

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

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs Mariamma Joseph

Kavya Vs Sunesh

Kavya Vs Sunesh

Nithumol Nazar Vs Aashik.a

Abbas K.P. Vs Ramesh

Lissy Anto Vs Najumunnisa v