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 vs. Madhav (AIR 1984 Bombay 113). It was held therein that,

"Thus it is only after the application for permission to sue as an indigent person: is granted under

0.33 that the petition is numbered and registered and is deemed to be a plaint in the suit. Till that point of time the petition is not deemed to be a suit and there can be no question of payment of Court-fees on this petition on the basis that it is deemed to be a plaint. Since the petition is being withdrawn before the application for permission to sue as an indigent person is granted, there is no question of payment of any Court-fee on the basis that it is a plaint."

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

112.03.

The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.