IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 RFA.No. 370 OF 2007() --------------------- OS.686/2000 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT NOS. 1,2 & 3 1. M/S.ANJANEYA ENTERPRISES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14, (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. P.V. SURESHKUMAR, AGED 37, S/O. P.S. PADMANABHA PILLAI. 2. SRI.P.V.SURESH KUMAR, S/O. P.S. PADMANABHA PILLAI, AGED 37, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.ANJANEYA ENTERPRISES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. 3. SRI.PADMANABHA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 67, PARTNER, M/S.ANJANEYA ENTERPRISES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. SRI.C.N.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFIF & ADDL. DEFENDANT NO.4: 1. M/S. SREE SAKTHI PAPER MILLS LTD., SREE KAILAS, 39/2724 A, PALIYAM ROAD, COCHIN-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.VINOD KUMAR, S/O. V. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 38, VADAKE HOUSE, KANANBRA, PALAGHAT. RFA 370/2007 :2: 2. MRS. .MEERA SADASIVAN, AGED ABOUT 32, W/O. P.V. SURESH KUKMAR, PARTNER, M/S. ANJANEYA ENTERPRISES, TRIVANDRUM-14, T.C.24/1648, THEYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 655014. BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR CAVEATOR THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RFA 370/2007 ORDER ON I.A. 3781/2007 IN R.F.A. 370/2007 // DISMISSED // 29.7.2008. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) SD/-, T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. NO. 370 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal was filed along with a petition to declare the appellant as an indigent person. That petition was dismissed and time was granted for payment of court fee. One third of the court-fee was paid and the matter came up for admission. The appeal was admitted on 26.7.2007. In terms of the provisions contained in the court Fees Act, balance court fee ought to have been remitted within a period of fifteen days. Even as on today, the balance court fee is not paid. Petition seeking enlargement of time also is not filed. In the circumstances, the appeal is rejected for non payment of balance court fee. In terms of Section 66 and the view taken by this court in Jamal v. Mohammedkutty (2003(3) KLT 803), the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal is directed to be refunded. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-