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. 17381 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------------- IA 02/2008 IN AS.116/2004 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: P.PRAKASH CHAND JAIN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PRITHVIRAJ JAIN, MADHUKAR CREDIT CORPORATION, NAHAR COLONY, RAJAJI STREET, METTUPALAYAM POST, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: 1. K.RAMAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KEEZHEPPAT PUTHAN VEETTIL, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. 2. K.P.SREEKUMAR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNDUVAMPADAM, KATAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17381 of 2008 T -------------------------- JUDGMENT Counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be disposed of without prejudice to his resorting to the remedies by filing an appeal, as a Division Bench of this Court has held that against the rejection of plaint for non payment of balance court fee an appeal alone will lie and that following the said analogy, as against rejection of an appeal memorandum for non payment of balance court fee a second appeal alone would lie. He further submits that if a second appeal is filed, the same would be barred by limitation by reason of the time consumed in prosecuting this writ petition. That is a matter which the petitioner can point out before the second appellate court while moving for condonation of delay. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I dismiss this writ petition. 16th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv