CRP No. 744 of 2008 · Kerala High Court

C.R.P.No.744 of 2008 2before the Appellate Court. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner invited my attention to two decisions of this Court., i.e.Cochin Kazag Ltd. v Bharath Cartons (2004(1) KLTS.N. Case No.69 Page 53) and Felix Varkey v MunicipalSecretary (2006(4)KLT S.N.Case No.46 Page 31) and submitted that the revision petitioner who is aggrieved by the rejection of his plaint can invoke the power of the Court which rejected the plaint to review the judgment from which appeal lies. The learned counsel for there vision petitioner submits that he was prevented by sufficient reason from remitting the court fee in time which lead to the rejection of his claim. Though it can beseen that there was some latches on the part of there vision petitioner for remitting the court fee, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to allow the revision petitioner to contest the case. For that, the plaint has tobe restored back to file. 5. In the result, I allow this revision petition. Theimpugned order is set aside. I.A.No.1388 of 2008 inO.S.No.311 of 2005 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub C.R.P.No.744 of 2008 3Court Thiruvananthapuram shall stand allowed.6. The additional court fee remitted by the revision petitioner shall be reckoned as a timely remittance as ordered. 7. The parties shall appear before the Sub Court on17.9.2012. Both sides shall be given an opportunity to adduce their evidence and the trial court shall give anearly verdict preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGEcss/