ORDER :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This reference has been placed before us by the hon’ble Chief Justice based on a reference order of the learned brother judge A. Hariparsad doubting the dictum in Shahul Hameed v. Sulekha Beevi [2017 (1) KLT 39].

2. The question in this reference is a to the court fee payable by the review petitioner seeking review of the second appeal which was dismissed at the stage of admission.

3. Another learned single Judge of this Court in Shahul Hameed’s case (supra) took the view that the review petitioiner is liable to pay 1½ of the fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. This was placing reliance on Article 5 of schedule I of the Court Fees and suits valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala) (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”)

4. The learned single judge in the reference order was of the view that the court fee payable is only half of the 1/3rd court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. This view was placing reliance on a combined reading of Article 5 of Schedule-I of the Act and in the light of the second proviso to Section 52 of the Act which deals with payment of court fee in respect of appeals.

5. it is appropriate to refer Arcticle 5 of the Schedule-I of the Act