Kerala High Court
Edwin Joubert Van Ingen vs Lodestar Health & Tourism (India) Pvt on 14 March, 2013
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/23RD PHALGUNA 1934
CRP.NO. 697 OF 2008 ( )
-------------------------------------
I.A NO.365 OF 2007 & I.A. NO.789 OF 2008
IN O.S. NO.91 OF 2000, SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EDWIN JOUBERT VAN INGEN, AGED 96
YEARS, S/O.E.M.VAN INGEN, RESIDING AT
'BISSAL MUNTI', P.B.NO.44, OPP.POLICE TRAINING ACADEMY
MYSORE.
2. MICHAEL FLOYD ESHWAR, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.B.S.ESHWAR, RESIDING AT NO.1/1, COOKE TOWN
OPP.ITC FACTORY, BANGALORE.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------------------------------------------
LODESTAR HEALTH & TOURISM (INDIA) PVT.
LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LODESTAR
IN AREEKAD NEAR NALLALAM POLICE STATION, NALLALAM
AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK
REP. BY ITS M.D., C.K.MUMTHAS, D/O.AHAMMED KU
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.03.2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
C.R.P No.697 of 2008
====================================
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2013
O R D E R
Respondent filed O.S. No.91 of 2000 in the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery for recovery of money from from petitioners. Since according to the respondent it was not able to pay the required court fee, it filed I.A. No.365 of 2007 under Rule 1 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") seeking permission to sue as indigent. It appears that enquiry was conducted on that application and as learned counsel for petitioner says, enquiry revealed that respondent has means to pay the court fee. It is submitted that at that stage, respondent filed I.A. No.789 of 2008 to withdraw I.A. No.365 of 2007 filed under Rule (1)(3) of Order XXIII of the Code. That application was allowed by the learned Sub Judge by orders dated 27.08.2008. Those orders are under challenge in this Civil Revision.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that they have no objection in I.A. No.365 of 2007 being withdrawn but are aggrieved by the learned Sub Judge allowing fresh application for the same relief after having entered a finding that respondent C.R.P. No.697 of 2008 -: 2 :- has sufficient means to pay court fee.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, without going into the controversy involved has submitted that respondent is prepared to pay the court fee payable on the plaint and requested time for payment of balance court fee.
4. In the light of the above submission it is not necessary to go into other controversies raised in the Civil Revision. It follows that impugned orders passed by the learned Sub Judge on 27.08.2008 allowing I.A. No.789 of 2008 and granting permission to file fresh application have to go.
Resultantly, the Civil Revision is disposed of as under:
(i) Orders dated 27.08.2008 on I.A. No.789 of 2008 granting permission to withdraw I.A. No.365 of 2007 in O.S. No.91 of 2000 of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery are set aside.
(ii) Submission of learned counsel for respondent that respondent is prepared to pay balance court fee payable on the plaint is accepted and recorded.
(iii) Consequently I.A. No.365 of 2007 will stand closed.
(iv) Respondent is granted time till 23.05.2013 to pay balance court fee payable on the plaint.
C.R.P. No.697 of 2008 -: 3 :-
(v) On payment of balance court fee learned Sub Judge shall proceed with the suit as provided under the law.
All Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv