JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam and the respondent is the defendant. The suit is one for partition and for past and future mesne profits.

2. According to the petitioner, the parties had consented for the passing of a preliminary decree and for return of half of the court fee paid and necessary endorsements to that effect had been made by vide both sides on the plaint. The court below Ext.P5 judgment decreed the suit but did not consider the request for refund of half of the court fee paid. Therefore, the petitioner herein had moved Ext.P7 application for review. The said application for review was dismissed by Ext.P9 order which according to the petitioner is incorrect. The court below ought to have ordered refund of half of the court fee paid. As Ext.P9 order is illegal and incorrect, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. The Court below by Ext.P5 judgment passed a decree for partition and ordered the plaint scheduled property to be partitioned by metes and bounds into two equal shares and to allot one share each to the petitioner and respondent respect