The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition challenging the lower court's findings that the petitioner did not pay insufficient court fees. The Court found no error and held the petition lacked merit as court fees sufficient for the current relief (recovery of advances and compensation) had been paid.
The original petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
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
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/17TH POUSHA, 1940
O.P.(C)No.26 of 2019
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.S.No.209/2014 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER:
REJIPRASAD, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O NAMASIVA, PUNNAKKODE, POLPULLY, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) SRI.T.S.NEJIMUDDIN SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENT:
P. CHANDRAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O PONNU, PALIYODE HOUSE, KOLLUPARAMBU, VERUKOLI P.O., POLPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.26 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The finding on an issue of court fees, is under challenge by the defendant in the suit.
2. The suit as originally filed was one for specific performance for an agreement for sale. The suit was subsequently amended as one for return of advance amount and for compensation. Court fee was paid accordingly. The defendant raised an objection that the court fee paid is insufficient and that court fee needs to be paid as in a suit for specific performance.
3. The court below as per the impugned order found that the relief for specific performance was given up by the plaintiff and the suit as presently stands is one for recovery of advance sale consideration and
O.P.(C)No.26 of 2019
3
compensation. The court found that required court fee has been paid for the relief as is now claimed.
I do not find any error in the impugned
order. It could not be substantiated before me that, for the relief as is now claimed the court fee paid is insufficient.
The original petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
ss
O.P.(C)No.26 of 2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.209/2014 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 20.10.2014 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY |
| THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S.209/2014 DATED 11.3.2015 |
|
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT FILED AS I.A.1459/2015 IN O.S.209/2014 DATED 15.6.2015 |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 13.7.2018 IN O.S.209/2014 IF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED IN I.A.2807/2018 IN O.S.209/2014 DATED 25.9.2018 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.2808/2018 IN O.S.209/2014 DATED 3.10.2018 |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.2809/2018 IN |
| O.S.209/2014 TO ACCEPT THE LIST OF WITNESSES DATED 25.9.2018 |
|
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPC.2489/2018 DATED 3.10.2018 |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, PALAKKAD IN I.A.2808/2018 IN O.S.209/2014 DATED 26.11.2018 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the original civil petition for challenging the court fee order lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rejisprasad
P. Chandran
Sathish Ninan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
