K. V. RADHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is preferred against the order of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in CMA No. 150 of 2003. At the outset I may like to say that the technical objection sustained by the Court below cannot be found fault with. But at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to render justice to a party when a mistake is committed by the Court itself.

(2.) It is revealed from the facts of the case that the plaint was rejected under O.7 R.11 of Code of Civil Procedure for non payment of court fee. But the real fact is that the court fee has been paid and so the rejection of the plaint under that Rule should not have been resorted to by the Court. Normally when such a mistake is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court can always invoke its inherent jurisdiction to do justice to the party and pass appropriate orders. Unfortunately, in this case, both the Courts below had relied more on technical and legal objection than rendering substantial justice to the party which he is entitled to in the light of the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) It is true that an application was filed under O.41 R.19 with O.47 R.1 of CPC as well and certainly now it is the settled position of law that when a plaint is rejected it amounts to a decree and therefore it can be appealed against or this Court had held that a review application also can be filed in such circumstances. First Court considered it as a review application, but dismissed the review application on the ground that there was no reason to condone the delay. Second Court, namely, the District Court, said that the appeal is not maintainable and on facts also held that without a petition to condone the delay, the matter cannot be entertained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, now what is brought to the notice of the Court by filing a review application is to correct the mistake committed by the Court in rejecting the plaint for non payment of court fee when really the court fee has been paid. So, it is in a way to correct the mistake committed by the Court, the application was filed. Actually, the Court should have taken that application as an intimation to the Court to correct the mistake and should not have resorted to technicalities to dismiss the petition.