JUDGMENT

The Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside Ext.P5 order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, (Trial Court).

2. The concise case of the petitioner in the original petition is that he is the plaintiff in O.S 33/2016 (Ext.P1), on the file of the Trial Court, filed against the respondent for a decree for return of money to the tune of Rs.65 lakh with interest.

3. The Trial Court by its order dated 13.12.2016 rejected the plaint for non-payment of court fee. The petitioner had filed I.A No.190/2019 (Review Petition No.190/2019) (Ext.P3) to review the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2016 and I.A No.189/2019 (Ext.P2) to condone the delay.

4. The respondent opposed Exts.P2 and P3 applications by filing Ext.P4 written objection.

5. The Trial Court by Ext.P5 common order dismissed Exts.P2 and P3.

6. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 common order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the original petition, inter alia, contending that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the order dismissing Ext.P3 application and not a review petition. It was categorically pleaded in Ext.P4 written objection that the petitioner has not stated sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing Ext.P3 review petition. The reason stated for non-payment of court fee is insufficient. The petitioner ought to have sought exemption from payment of court fee, if he was in financial distress. The reason assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner himself has admitted in Ext.P3, that there is no error apparent on the face of record, which is mandatory requirement to review a judgment. In the absence of such a material averment, the application is only to be dismissed. Moreover, the petitioner had not filed an application to condone the delay in filing the review petition. A reading of Ext.P2 would show that the application was only to condone the delay in accepting the court fee. Hence the original petition may be dismissed. 8. Heard Sri.Rakesh.K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.Jayesh Mohankumar appearing for the respondent.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Trial Court below ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter, especially since the petitioner had deposited the balance court fee along with Exts.P2 and P3 applications. Instead, the court has adopted a pedantic approach by dismissing the applications on hyper technical grounds, which is erroneous and unjustifiable. He also contended that the suit is filed for return of a substantial amount of Rs.65 lakh. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have granted the petitioner an opportunity to contest the case on merits, instead of foreclosing the petitioner's right on technicalities/default.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehementally opposed the original petition. He contended that the petitioner ought to have filed an application to condone the delay in filing the review petition. A reading of Ext.P2 would establish that the application was filed only to condone the delay in payment of court fee, which is insufficient. Similarly, the petitioner ought to have challenged the original judgment and decree by way of an appeal instead of a review petition. At any rate, there is an inordinate delay of 1098 days in filing the review petition. The applications have been rightly rejected by the Trial Court by Ext.P5 order. There is no circumstance warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the its supervisory jurisdiction.

11. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this original petition is whether Ext.P5 order passed by the court below, in rejecting the review petition and the delay petition, is justifiable or not.

12. It is on record that the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 application to review the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the plaint for non-pa