K.NARAYANA KURUP, T.M.HASSAN PILLAI
Sankunni Somadhan – Appellant
Versus
Vinodhini Amma – Respondent
T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.
But for the persuasive and forceful argument of the learned counsel Shri. Shaffique, who rendered able and valuable assistance to us in answering the question mooted before us, we would have declined to grant the relief of refund of Court fee prayed for in the C.M.P. repelling the contention canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which in our considered view is devoid of any force, the S.66 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (for short'the Act') which provides for refund of Court fee as it stands does not bar out the present case from the purview of that Section. At the same time, we appreciate the forthright and candid submission made by counsel for the petitioner while making a fervent plea for refund of Court fee paid that it was on the basis of the wrong legal advice given by her the Court fee of Rs. 10,706/- was paid by the petitioner, though we find no factual or legal basis for giving such a wrong advice. Needless to point out here that Court fee payable in an appeal under S.52 of the Act need be paid by a party who approaches the Court for restoration of the appeal rejected on the ground of delay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.