The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to extend the time for payment of balance court fee if reasonable grounds have been made out in the petition for reviewing the judgment.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the court below in I.A. Nos.4414 and 4415 of 2014 in O.S. No.167 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners filed Ext.P1 suit as O.S. No.167 of 2012 on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into between the plaintiffs-petitioners herein and defendants-respondents herein. The respondents filed a written statement raising a counter claim for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. Since the petitioners did not pay the balance court fee, the suit O.S. No.167 of 2012 was rejected for non-payment of balance court as per Ext.P2 judgment and the counter claim was decreed ex parte by the same judgment. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Exts.P4 and P3 applications, I.A. Nos.4412 and 4413 of 2014 in O.S. No.167 of 2012 to set aside the ex parte decree in the counter claim along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Petitioners also filed Exts.P4 and P5 applications as I.A. Nos.4414 and 4415 of 2014 to review the judgment rejecting the plaint for non-payment of balance court fee. Exhibits P4 and P3 were allowed by the court below as per Ext.P7 order on payment of costs and costs was paid and the applications were allowed and the counter claim has been restored to file. But the applications filed along with the delay condonation petition to review the judgment rejecting the plaint for non-payment of balance court fee were dismissed as per Ext.P8 order stating that the said court has no power to extend the time for payment of balance court fee beyond the period mentioned under Section 4A of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala) (for short, "the Act"). Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard Shri R.Sudhish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Renjith Narayanan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and shri K. Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below was not justified in rejecting the application to review the impugned judgment stating that there is no power to extend the time beyond the statutory period. It is further submitted that having allowed the application to set aside the ex parte decree in the counter claim, the court below ought to have allowed the application for review of Ext.P2 judgment also granting time to the petitioners to pay balance court fee payable. The learned counsel also submitted that the reasonings given by the court below for dismissing the applications are not sustainable. Counsel has relied on he decision in Shajahan v. Kamala Narayanan, 1997 [1] KLT 569 in support of his case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the applications as balance court fee was not paid even along with the petition to review the judgment.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners filed O.S. No.167 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into between the petitioners and the 1st respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st respondent filed a written statement raising a counter claim for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to vacate from the property as they have not complied with the conditions as per the agreement. It is also an admitted fact that since the petitioners did not pay the balance court fee as provided under Section 4A of the Act, the suit was rejected for non-payment of balance court fee under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the