NARAYANAN Vs. MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Records placed before me show that service of notice on the respondent has been completed. There is no representation for the respondent either in person or through counsel. Heard counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) This revision is directed against the common order dated 31-7-1997 in I. A. Nos. 5286 and 5287 of 1996 in O. S. No. 192 of 1993 of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur. I. A. No. 5286 of 1996 was filed for an order to restore the suit and I. A. No. 5287 of 1996 is a petition to condone the delay in filing the application. The respondent opposed both the applications by filing written objections. The court below dismissed both the applications on perusal of records as the suit was not dismissed, but on the fault of the plaintiff to remit the court fee in time, only the plaint was rejected and, therefore, a petition of this nature will not lie before the court.

(3.) The suit was for realisation of a sum of Rs. 32,200/- payable to the plaintiff/petitioner herein by the defendant, who is the respondent herein, as per an agreement dated 26-2-1990. The suit appears to have been posted on 26-9-1996 for payment of balance court fee. Because of the non payment of court fee on time, the plaint was rejected. According to the petitioner, he could not pay the balance court fee on time as he was away at Adimaly and was laid up and could not arrange for payment of the balance court fee, which resulted in the rejection of the plaint.