IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 12298 of 2007(V) -------------------------- AS.66/2002 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUZHICHAN, NEAR SNAKE PARK, PARASSANIKADAVU. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL SMT.SARITHA SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- T.R.ANTONY, S/O.RAPHEL, AGED 64 YEARS, KANIYARVAYAL, KALLIASSERI AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, P.O.MANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.06 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR. [ True copy ] P.A. to Judge. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 12298 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Payannur in I.A.49/05 and I.A.50/05 in I.A.363/04 in A.S.66/02. A.S.66/02 is an appeal preferred by the defendant in O.S.179/99. The said appeal was rejected for non-payment of Court fee. The appellant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 19 to restore the appeal. That was also not properly prosecuted which resulted in dismissal of the same. Thereafter with a petition to condone the delay an application was filed to restore the application for restoration of the appeal. That has also been dismissed. 2. At the out set I may like to say that the whole attempt is an attempt in futility for the reason that a restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 will not lie when an appeal is rejected for non-payment of Court fee. When an appeal is rejected for non-payment of Court fee a W.P.C 12298 OF 2007 -:2:- decree follows and therefore it becomes an appealable decree. By pronouncement of Courts another remedy is provided by way of review but what the appellant has filed is an application for restoration which should have been thrown out at the threshold itself. I do not want to elaborate on that matter. There is no point in considering these applications for the reason that the main application itself is not maintainable. Therefore I dismiss the writ petition, but of course give the liberty to the appellant to move the appropriate appellate forum for redressal of his grievance and in the petition to condone the delay he can plead the matters that were pending before such Courts which can also be taken note of by the Court. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-