IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11235 of 2004(K)
1. R.MOHAN DAS S/O. K.N.RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :25/06/2010
O R D E R
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//