BABU Vs. ELSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur thereby the Court has directed to remit 1/10th of the Court fee. It is seen that the P.O.P. was dismissed as claim satisfied. The question that arises for consideration is whether at that stage whether it was proper on the part of the Court to demand the petitioner to pay the Court fee. This aspect was considered by the Bombay High Court in the decision reported in Malati v. Madhav, AIR 1984 Bombay 113. It was held therein that,

(2.) Here, instead of withdrawal the only change is that the claim has been satisfied. The original petition has not been converted into a suit. Further these types of provisions have to be interpreted which is beneficial to the party and therefore I set aside the order passed by the Court below and direct to refund the Court fee which is deposited as seen from the order passed by the Court on 18.12.03.