IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 RFA.No. 122 of 2008() --------------------- OS.278/2003 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------- CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PRABHUDHA PANICKER, SUDHARSANA, ERICKAVU MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------ SARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D/O.KARTHIYAYINI, NOW RESIDING AT DARSANA, THULAMPARAMBU, NADUVATHUM MURI, HARIPAD. ADV. SRI.S.BALACHANDRA PILLAI FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A. No. 122 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, This is an appeal against the rejection of the plaint for non- prosecution. But the court as per the impugned order found that balance court fee has been remitted. For the technical ground that it was not remitted before 3 p.m., the plaint was rejected. 2. True that no application for extension of time was made. But here is a case where the amount was remitted on the very same day that must be the reason why extension of time was not sought and the court must take a lenient view and should not have rejected the plaint for non-payment of the court fee. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order and restore the suit to file. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.