Kerala High Court
Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers ... vs George on 2 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)KLT579
ORDER G. Sasidharan, J.
1. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.30/1999 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. There was a posting of the case on 30.1.2002 for payment of balance court fee. Plaintiff who is the respondent in the petition did not pay the balance court fee on that day. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. 1254/2002 to accept balance court fee and Court allowed the above application. The present petitioner filed an application for review of that order and by impugned order, the application for review was dismissed.
2. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has no power to extend the period for payment of court fee beyond 30 days. In the revision, petitioner says that the learned Munsiff would not have extended the period for payment of balance court fee in the light of the decision reported in Mable v. Dolores (2001 (2) KLT 612). The question whether, the Court had power to extend the period for payment of the balance court fee beyond 30 days came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Elizabeth and Anr. v. Francis Edwin and Ors., 1991 (2) KLT 779 = AIR 1992 Kerala 108. This Court held that the power is available under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant extension of time for payment of court fee beyond 30 days. In the decision Mable v. Dolores, 2001 (2) KLT 612, also the above position was accepted. In that decision, the question which came up for consideration was whether power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked when a plaint gets rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and when he has already approached the appellate Court with an appeal. The Court can extend the period for payment of court fee beyond 30 days. So there is no merit in the petition.
The C.R.P. is dismissed.