IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 11235 OF 2004(K) -------------------------- {I.A.NO.4939/02 IN O.S.NO.523/95 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM} ................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.MOHAN DAS S/O. K.N.RAGHAVAN, CONTRACTOR, RESIDING IN SHANTHI NIKETH, CHARAKAL P.O., CANNANNOOR 11. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB SRI.S.GOWTHAM SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DTI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO. 11235 OF 2004 :: :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.1997 IN O.S.NO.523 OF 1995 OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2002 IN I.A.NO.2948/1999. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2003 IN I.A.NO.4939/2002. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11235 of 2004 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in a suit for money, has filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed in a review petition moved for restoring the suit to file. 2. Since the plaintiff failed to pay the court fee payable on the suit claim, despite being provided with sufficient opportunity to do so, the plaint was rejected. He moved an application for restoring the suit. That application also was dismissed. The review petition filed challenging the order dismissing his application for restoration was also found meritless and hence dismissed by the court below. Rejection of a plaint for non-payment W.P.(C).No.11235 of 2004 :: 2 :: of court fee is challengeable by way of an appeal, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. So much so dismissal of an application moved to restore the suit or the application for restoration or even to review the orders passed on such application, can be canvassed in appeal, if any, is filed. It is brought to my notice that the application for restoring the suit, which had been dismissed for non-payment of the court fee, was moved by the petitioner two years after its dismissal. When that be so, no interference with the order passed by the court below invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. W.P.(C).No.11235 of 2004 :: 3 :: Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//