IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 169 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/06/2009 IN IA.694/2009 IN OS.168/2007 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------- VAIDYANATHAN IYER, S/O.RAMANATHAN IYER, KRISHNA BHAVAN, FROM PADINJAREMADATHIL, KAVUMBHAGOM MURI & VILLAGE, THKIRUVALLA TALUK (SECRETARY, KARUNATTU KAVU, SREEKRISHNASWAMI DEVASOM KAVUMBHAGOM) PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------- 1. S.BHAGYALAZMI, CHOKKAM MADATHIL (SAI), KAVUMBHAGOM MURI & VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. B.RADHAKRISHNAN, CHOKKAM MADATHIL (SAI), KAVUMBHAGOM MURI & VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHAMATHITTA DISTRICT. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O. No.169 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is filed against the order dismissing an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-payment of balance court fee, and not for any default of appearance. Hence, it was rightly rejected by the court below holding that Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure will not apply. We find no ground to interfere in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.