IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11999 of 2009(N) ----------------------------------------- ORDER IN IA 3834/2006 IN OS.690/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- E.T.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR SREENILAYAM, PUTHOOR P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. * THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS E.T.RAJENDRAN NAIR, INSTEAD OF E.T.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AS PER ORDER DT. 17.7.2009 IN IA. NO.8394/2009. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- E.T.PRABHAVATHY, D/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, 'ANUBHAMA', CHAVAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11999 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to Exhibit P7 and to quash the original of the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the court below to accept the petitioner in I.A.No.2495/2006 in O.S.No.690/2005.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.690/2005 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. Suit was one for specific performance for an agreement of sale. Suit was instituted paying 1/10th of the court fee on the suit claim. Balance court fee was not paid within the time granted by the court which led to rejection of the plaint. After moving a review petition for setting aside the order and restoring the suit, which too was dismissed, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court and filed the above petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs W.P.(C).No.11999 of 2009 - O 2 invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. The order rejecting a plaint for nonpayment of sufficient court fee payable on the plaint falls under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which is deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) CPC, from which an appeal can be preferred as of right by the petitioner/plaintiff. When an appeal is provided under CPC, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief as provided by the statute, this writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-