ANIL KAMATH Vs. VASU NAIK N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A. I in this case is for condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. Normally, the Court would have had to issue notice to the Respondent and then consider the i. A. I after hearing the parties. This is a peculiar case, insofar as the respondent was the person from whom the petitioner sought to recover certain sums of money. The dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat, the parties arrived at a settlement and thereafter on 28-9-2002, a joint memo was filed before the Trial Court praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the dispute is settled amicably by virtue of the order passed by the Lok Adalat. The Court passed the necessary order dismissing the suit as settled between the parties. The entire difficulty has come up with regard to the consequential prayer because the plaintiff therein who is the petitioner before me had prayed for the refund of the Court fee and the Court has rejected that prayer on the ground that an affidavit of the plaintiff had been received in evidence and technically, the proceeding has made some headway and that therefore, the application for refund could not be granted. The reference is to the affidavit that has been filed as and by way of evidence as per the amended civil Procedure Code. It is against this last part of the order that the present Civil Revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) THE petitioner's Learned Advocate points out to me that he has shown the original debtor as the formal party respondent but, that in this proceeding he is in no way concerned with the refund of Court fee because this is something between the petitioner and the state. To this extent, the petitioner's Learned Advocate is perfectly right an it is for this reason that I have dispensed with the notice being issue to the Respondent.

(3.) I have heard the petitioner's Learned Advocate on I. A. I. I. A is allowed and the delay is condoned.