IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1800 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------------ IA.3989&3990/2008 IN OS.285/2004 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: 1. K.KUMARI GEETHA @ GEETHAKUMARI, D/O.KUNJIPILLAI AMMA, GOVT.N.G.O.QUARTERS, RAJEEV NAGAR, MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (EDAKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU), PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK). 2. K.VASANTHA KUMARI, EDAKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER RESPONDENTS: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVT.SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 6. D.HARIDASAN, THOTTUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY MULAVANA VILLAGE, SECRETARY, SNDP SAKHA YOGAM NO.502, PERAYAM, KOLLAM. 7. PURUSHOTHAMAN, EDAKKATTU PUTHEN VEETTIL PURAYIDAM, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1800 of 2009 L -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.285/04 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kollam. It is submitted that the plaint in the suit was rejected by the court below for non payment of the balance court fee. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is to set aside Exhibit P4 order and to issue a direction to the Munsiff, Kollam to accept the balance court fee paid by the petitioner and to restore the suit on file and decide it on merits. 3. A Division Bench of this Court has held that as against rejection of the plaint for non payment of the balance court fee only an appeal would lie. In view of the said judgment, petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition. All the same, it is contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as Exhibit P4 common order has been passed by the WPC 1800/09 2 court below on I.A.Nos.3989/08 and 3990/08, which are applications to restore the suit and to condone the delay, this Court is perfectly competent to entertain this writ petition, set aside Exhibit P4 order and direct restoration of the suit. To restore the plaint rejected for non payment of the balance court fee, the remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal. Hence, there is no meaning for this Court to interfere with Exhibit P4 order, as even in the event of Exhibit P4 order being set aside, I.A.Nos.3989/08 and 3990/08 cannot be allowed as the relief prayed for can only be obtained by filing an appeal. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of prosecuting the applications, on which Exhibit P4 order has been passed by the court below, some delay has occasioned and the petitioner would be put to difficulties as there will be delay in filing the appeal. Petitioner can point out the circumstances and seek for condonation of delay WPC 1800/09 3 before appropriate court. There is no merit in this writ petition. In the result, I dismiss this writ petition. 16th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv