IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 546 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2008 IN IA 6740/2007. IN OS.614/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ ASIATIC ASSOCIATION A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REP. BY ITS PROPRETOR N.SUJAN BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M/S.SATYA PRAKASH & BROTHER PVT. LTD.CO REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SATHYAPRAKASH GUPTA. 2. DR.MADHUSOODAN, AUTHORISED REPRESENTIVE M/S.SATYA PRAKASH & BROTHER PVT. LTD.CO. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON 17/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP.No. 546 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.614 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was rejected under clause(c) of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil procedure for non-payment of balance court fee. Petitioner filed I.A.6740 of 2007 under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code to review the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court fee. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the application, holding that remedy of petitioner is only to file an appeal. Learned Sub Judge was not justified in dismissing the application finding that the only remedy available is filing an appeal. When a suit is rejected for non-payment of balance court fee as provided under Order VII Rule 11(c), the plaintiff can either file an appeal or file an application for review. It cannot be said that the only remedy is filing an appeal. In such circumstances, the order dated 3.6.2008 is quashed. Sub Judge is directed to consider I.A.6740 of 2007 on merit and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-