Referring to the decision reported in Manoharan v. Sivarajan [2013 (4) KLT 828], the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to sustain the maintainability of this original petition and also the restoration petition said to have been filed by the petitioner before the court below as I.A.No. 681/2014.
2. The petitioner instituted O.S.No. 313/2012. He failed to pay the requisite court fee. The plaint was rejected. He thereafter filed I.A.No. 681/2014 to enlarge the time for payment of court fee and also to restore the suit to file. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order from which the original petition arises.
3. It is difficult to understand how the principle laid down in Manoharan v. Sivarajan [2013 (4) KLT 828] can be of any help to the petitioner. That was a case where plaint was rejected for non payment of requisite court fee and thereafter, the court concerned was approached for extension of time which was rejected. From that order, a regular appeal was filed before the High Court and since that appeal was filed out of time, there was a petition to condone the delay also. This Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay for want of sufficient cause and also dismissed the regular first appeal. The matter was carried to the Apex Court. The Apex Court found that in such cases, the court needs to take a liberal approach and should have exercised a discretion in favour of the litigant.
4. Ultimately, the Apex Court disposed of the matter as follows:
“18. In view of the reasons assigned while answering point Nos. 1,2 and 3 in favour of the appellant, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay is allowed. Therefore, we allow the appeal by setting aside the judgments and decree of both the Trial Court and the High Court and remand the case back to the Trial Court for payment of court fee within 8 weeks. If for any reason, it is not possible for the appellant to pay the court fee, in such event, he is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional district legal service authority and Taluk Legal Services Committee seeking for grant of legal aid for sanction of court fee amount payable on the suit before the Trial Court. If such application is filed, the same shall be considered by such committee and the same shall be facilitated to the appellant to get the right of the appellant adjudicated by the Trial Court by securing equal justice as provided under Art.39A of the Constitution of India read with the provision of S.12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act read with Regulation of Kerala State. We further direct the Trial Court to adjudicate on the rights of the parties on merit and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.”
5. The learned counsel relies on mention of Article 39A of Constitution of India and also Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act and the Regulation of Kerala State in aid of his contention that the petition ought to have been allowed. The Apex Court had occasion to refer to those provisions in case it was not possible for the appellant to pay the court fee. It is not a case where the remedy available to the petitioner in case when the plaint is rejected for non payment of requisite court fee was considered. The observation has to be taken in the context in which it appears and taking into consideration the fact that if for any reason, it is found that the person concerned was incapable of raising the court fee that is necessary to be paid, he may resort to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Needless to say that benefit will also be available to the petitioner also. However, that has nothing to do with the remedy available to the petitioner when the plaint is rejected for nonpayment of court fee.
6. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that the remedies available are either a review or a regular appeal as rejection of a plaint is deemed to be a decree. Therefore, the petition for restoration was rightly rejected.
7. This will not preclude the petitioner from seeking such remedies as are available to him under law, based on the observations of the Apex Court referred to above.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
ds //True Copy// P.A. To Judge Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE