The rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) takes the shape of a decree and is appealable under Section 96 of the CPC. Remittance of 50% of the court fee is required for seeking a review of the rejected plaint.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These two First Appeals, being First Appeal No. 107 of 2018, Collector, Dehradun and another Vs. Harish Joshi and others, and First Appeal No. 106 of 2018, Collector, Dehradun and another Vs. Shri Bhaskara Nand Joshi and others, have been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as against the impugned awards, which were under challenge.

2. Despite of several opportunities being granted, when the Court fee was not remitted, the matter was taken up in the light of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) of the CPC, and the same was decided by this Court by the judgment of 29th August, 2019, holding thereof, that since the requisite court fee has not been remitted, the plaint deserves to be rejected, in view of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 (c).

3. The aforesaid judgment of 29th August, 2019, as rendered in each of the First Appeal is sought to be reviewed by preferring a Review Application on 15th October, 2022, along with the Delay Condonation Application, seeking condonation of 305 days of delay in each of the Review Application.

4. The Delay Cononation Application is being vehemently opposed by the respondents Counsel by filing an objection to it. Apart from the fact, that the Registry has reported that the review application thus preferred by the appellant would be barred because, the requisite court fee as required for preferring a review application against the rejection of the First Appeal under Order 7 Rule 11 (c), has not been complied with.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the aspect of delay has had to be reasonably considered by this Court for seeking review of the judgement when the Appeals have been dismissed for non-supplying of the requisite court fee in the light of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 (c).

6. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, qua the delay condoantion application and the objection raised by the respondents to it, this Court is of the view, that prior to addressing the review application on its own merit, the delay which has chanced in filing the review application, would hereby stand condoned.

7. Accordingly, IA Nos. 16150 of 2022 and 16151 of 2022, filed in First Appeal No. 107 of 2018, and IA Nos. 16149 of 2022 and 16150 of 2022, in First Appeal No. 106 of 2018, would stand disposed of.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Review Applications, being Review Application Nos. 16149 of 2022 and 16148 of 2022 respectively in each of the two First Appeals.

9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant under the strength of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court, in R.P. No. 697 of 2009, Narikuniyil Narayanan Vs. Palol Ummer, where the Coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court in para 4 has observed, that a review application, which has been dismissed due to non supplying of the court fee while going to the provisions contained under Article 5 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, a review application would be treated as to be not a decree for the purposes of filing of a review application without remittance of the requisite court fee.

10. It was observed, that since the Appeal was rejected not on merits but only for default in payment of the court fee, the Court observes, that it cannot be deemed to be a decree going in by the definition of decree provided under Section 2 (2) of the CPC, because for the reason that no decision has been rendered on the merits of the Appeal, hence the same would not be treated as to be a decree. Relevant paragraph 4 is extracted hereunder :-

“4. The question is whether the court fee paid on the review petition is sufficient. Going by Article 5 of Schedule I, on an application for review of judgment, one half of the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal comprising the relief sought in the application for review, has to be remitted. Learned counsel for the petitio