THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.518 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda. That was a suit for money filed against the respondent. The case was referred to the Lok Adalath where the dispute was settled and Ext.P1, award was passed on 12.3.2010 for Rs. 15 lakhs without interest and costs. The Lok Adalath in Ext.P1, award directed that 1/10th of the court fee paid by the petitioner be refunded. Based on that award, petitioner filed Ext.P2, application before the learned Sub Judge to issue certificate for refund of 1/10th of the court fee paid on the plaint. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P3, order placing reliance on the decision of this Court in John Arthur Henshaw v. Sulochana,2010 1 KerLT 10 . Ext.P3, order is under challenged

(2.) It is contended that the decision relied on by the learned Sub Judge has no application to the facts of the case since in the reported case there was no order by the Lok Adalath to refund 1/10th of the court fee but a request was made for the first time in the civil court which was rejected. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision in John Arthur Henshaw's case and in particular, the observations in para.4 to contend that there is no provision in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, "the Act") to refund 1/10th of the court fee paid on the plaint.

(3.) It is not disputed, and Ext.P1 shows that case was settled before the Lok Adalath and in the same award the Lok Adalath directed that 1/10th of the court fee paid on the plaint by the petitioner be refunded to him. Petitioner had paid Rs. 15,160/-as 1/10th of the court fee in the civil court at the time of institution of the suit. The question is whether in the light of Ext.P1, award which enables petitioner to get refund of 1/10th of the court fee, the civil court is bound to issue a certificate for release of the said amount.