Revision is directed against the order dated 26.6.2009 in O.S.No.442 of 2004 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam. The defendants in the above suit are the revision petitioners. Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money based on the work contract entered with the defendants was found not entertainable as the plaintiff was shown to be an unregistered firm. The learned Sub Judge rejecting the plaint ordered for refund of the court fee paid on the plaint and granted liberty to the plaintiff to file fresh suit on the basis of the registration of the firm, subsequently obtained. That order to the extent the refund of the court fee is allowed and liberty granted to the plaintiff to file fresh suit is challenged by the defendants in this revision.

2. I heard the counsel on both sides.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that there should have been an outright dismissal of the suit and not the rejection of the plaint alone ordering refund of the court fee and allowing the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the registration of the firm subsequently made. A number of judicial pronouncements was canvassed to contend that the p