Allowed

Shyju Joseph v. P. Thankamma

Kerala HC13 Jun 2023RFA/550/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal against the rejection of a suit for specific performance due to non-payment of balance court fee. The court granted an opportunity to pay the fees and set aside the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

The order of rejection dated 04.01.2011 is set aside; suit O.S No.114/2009 restored; balance court fee to be paid on or before 30.06.2023; appellants to pay Rs.5,000 as costs.

Shyju Joseph Vs P. Thankamma — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

RFA NO. 550 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 114/2009 OF SUB

¶7

COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT (KALPETTA), SULTHANBATHERY
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

1 SHYJU JOSEPH S/O.GEORGE, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, KOTTANAD P.O, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.

¶9

2 DHANYA K.S., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, KOWSTHUBAM HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. PHC, MEPPADI P.O, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK.

¶10

3 SUMA SURENDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.SURENDRAN, THANDUPILAKKAL HOUSE, THAZHE ARAPATTA, MEPPADI P.O, MOOPAINAD VILLAGE,VYTHIRI TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

¶12

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶13

P. THANKAMMA

¶14

D/O.GOVINDAN, PAZHEDATH HOUSE, CHOORAIMALA P.O,
VELLARIMALA, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE.
BY ADVS.
SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
SMT.M.B.DHANYA BABU

¶15

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

R.F.A. NO. 550 OF 2013 -: 2 :-

¶17

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. NO. 550 OF 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The suit for specific performance was rejected
for non-payment of the balance court fee. The same

¶21

is under challenge in this appeal by the plaintiff.

¶22

2. The suit is of the year 2009. The failure to

¶23

pay the balance court fee occurred on account of
omission in the office of the counsel. The party
ought not be prejudiced consequent of such
omission. Every endeavour is to be made to have
suits tried and disposed of on merits rather than
on default. Therefore, I am of the opinion that an
opportunity could be granted to the appellants for
payment of the balance court fees and to prosecute
the suit. The inconvenience caused to the

¶24

R.F.A. NO. 550 OF 2013 -: 3 :-

¶25

respondent can be compensated by way of costs.

¶26

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order

¶27

of rejection dated 04.01.2011 is set aside. The
suit – O.S No.114/2009 will stand restored back to
file. The balance court fee payable shall be paid
on or before 30.06.2023. On such payment, the
learned Munsiff shall proceed with the suit in
accordance with law. However, this shall be subject
to the condition that the appellants pay an amount
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs,
to the counsel appearing for the respondent in this
Court, within a period of one week. If the costs as
ordered is not paid, the appeal will stand
dismissed.

¶28

 Sd/-
 SATHISH NINAN
 JUDGE

¶29

smv/-

Shyju Joseph v. P. Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyju Joseph v. P. Thankamma

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

P.H. Shajahan Vs Rajeendran

Shahul Hameed Vs Pathumma

M/S.Rao and Company Vs Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.

V.M.Abdhul Samad, Vs Kochu Thresia

S.Sivarajan Vs the City Corporation

S.Sivarajan Vs the City Corporation