IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18628 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ OS.121/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ PARVATHY, W/O.LATE THANKAVELU, 4/130, MUKKAI, PUTHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD FINE ARTS SOCIETY (REGD), REP. BY PRESIDENT, T.R.RAJAGOPALAN, SREERAM COLONY, MANALMANTHA, PUTHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. THE PALAKKAD FINE ARTS SOCIETY (REGD) REP. BY SECRETARY P.N.SUBARAMAN RESIDING AT SREERAM COLONY, MANALMANTHA, PUTHUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dkr S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 18628 OF 2009 O ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in OS.No.121/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad has filed this writ petition against an order passed in a petition for reviewing the order passed by the court rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court fee. A review petition was moved with a delay condonation petition and the court below dismissed both the petitions under a common order. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find notice to the respondents is not necessary and it is dispensed with. Order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is deemed to be a decree as defined under section 2(2) of the CPC against which the aggrieved party has a right of appeal. When there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the WPC.18628/09 : 2 : court below for the sole reason that the review petition is filed with a petition to condone the delay against the order rejecting the plaint she cannot approach this court and seek the remedial reliefs resorting to the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court over the subordinate courts. Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs as provided by law, writ petition is closed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge