Kannamalil Chacko Mathew @ C.K. Mathew vs Thrivikraman Thampi

C.S.Dias, J

The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order dated 12.8.2016 passed in I.A No.48/2016 in O.S No.330/2012 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara.

On a perusal of Ext.P4 order, it is seen that I.A No.48/2016 is a review petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court fee.

Indisputably, an order rejecting a plaint for non-payment of court fee is a decree under Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the order being a decree, the petitioner chose to file a review petition by way of I.A No.48/2016, which is perfectly maintainable. However, the court below, finding that there is no error in the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court fee, dismissed the review petition.

In DSR Steel (P) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and others [2012 (6) SCC 782], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that there is no merger of an order dismissing a review petition with the original order. When a review petition is dismissed, then the remedy of the aggrieved party is to challenge the original order and not the order in the review petition.

In addition to the above, it is seen that Ext.P4 order was passed as early as on 12.8.2016, i.e., nearly seven years back.

In Bithika Mazumdar v. Sagar Pal and others [2017 (2) KHC 153], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even though there is no prescribed time period to file an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge has to be made within a reasonable time period.

In the case on hand, the explanation putforth by the petitioner is not at all convincing and sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of nearly seven years.

In the above legal and factual conspectus, I am not inclined to entertain the original petition. The original petition is merit-less and is consequently dismissed.