IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3121 of 2008(V) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2007 IN IA.1007/2007 IN OS.278/2003 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PRABHUDHA PANICKER, SUDHARSANA, ERICKAVU MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D/O.KARTHIYAYINI, NOW RESIDING AT DARSANA, THULAMPARAMBU NADUVATHUM MURI, HARIPAD. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 3121 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to set aside the order in I.A.1007/07 in O.S.278/03. The suit was one for specific performance of a contract. There was a direction to pay balance Court fee, It was not paid and therefore the plaint stood rejected. To review that order the plaintiff filed an application. It was dismissed on the ground that necessary Court fee is not paid and no evidence is adduced. The learned counsel would submit that if half of the Court fee is paid on the suit valuation it will be a considerable loss and therefore prays for leniency. Rejection of the plaint becomes judgment for the reason when a decree is drafted, it is made appealable under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. So this Court cannot show any indulgence in remission of Court fee. Just because he has filed a review application and has not paid the Court fee it shall not be W.P.C 3121 OF 2008 -:2:- taken as a ground that he was not eager in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, if a party wants to prefer an appeal and if there is delay, the factum of his prosecuting the matter before the Court to review may be considered as a reasonable cause for condonation of delay and it may be sympathetically considered. So I dispose of the writ petition leaving opportunity to the writ petitioner to challenge rejection of plaint in appeal and further suggest to the appellate court to consider the question of delay sympathetically. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-