IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 RFA.No. 149 of 2005() --------------------- OS.80/2004 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... (S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- M/S. SRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., SECOND FLOOR, APEX AVENUE, NEAR CIVIL STATION, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR FIELD OFFICER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MATHEW ABRAHAM,S/O.K.M.ABRAHAM,AGED 31,RESIDING AT PARANGOTTE, PALLIKUNNU, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: -------------------------- 1. SONA V.K., D/O. BHASKARAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, PUTHAN VALAPPIL HOUSE, MACHERI, P.O. MOWANCHERRY, KANNUR. 2. V.SUNILKUMAR, S/O. KUNCHAMBU, AGE NOT KNOWN, PADINHAREKOYYODIL, MACHERI, P.O. MOWANCHERRY, KANNUR. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkj THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.F.A.No.149 OF 2005 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. This appeal is against an order by which the court below rejected a plaint for non-payment of balance court fee. The appeal is filed because such an order is taken to be a decree for the purpose of appeal as ground for rejection of the plaint is indisputable. The suit was filed in 2004 and the order of rejection was passed on 3.7.2004. This appeal was filed in 2005 on the plea that an application filed under Section 148 for enlargement of time was not considered by the court below and the defendant had already stood ex parte. The appellant having allowed this appeal to lie here for the last more than six years, we do not find any ground to hold that the court below ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 148 so that this court is to exercise jurisdiction under Section 96 of CPC. RFA.149/05 2 Having regard to the fact that the time limit fixed for payment of balance court fee in terms of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959; also taking into consideration the provisos thereto, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right, if any, of the appellant to take recourse to remedies in accordance with law, as against the defendants. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.29/6.