1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 69/10 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottapalam. That suit was one for Specific Performance of an Agreement of sale, and in the alternative for refund of the advance amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- paid on the agreement. Ext. P2 is the copy of the plaint. The defendant resisted the suit claim on various grounds, but the execution of the agreement and also receipt of the advance amount, as stated, were admitted by them. Ext. P3 is the copy of the written statement.

2. Suit was instituted paying 1/10th of the court fee and after settling of issues the court directed for payment of the balance court fee the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). When that be so, the original petition filed to challenge Ext. P13 the order, according to the counsel. is not entertainable. The learned counsel has relied on A. Venkitasubbiah Naidu V. S. Chellappan & Others (2000 (7) SCC 695) to buttress the submission made that the petitioner cannot resort to constitutional remedy as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where he has an alternative remedy of filing a revision against Ext. P13 order. Reliance is also placed on Punjab National Bank V. O.C. Krishnan and others 2001 (6) SCC 569). Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2003 (3) SCC 524) and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011 (2) SCC 782) to contend that the relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be resorted to, if an efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Not only that a challenge against Ext. P13 order can be canvassed by filing a revision under Section 115 of the Code, the petitioner has also another efficacious remedy of impeaching the rejection of the plaint filing an appeal against such order as it is a ‘decree’ as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Code, is the further submission of the Senior counsel. To prefer such an appeal, the court fee payable is also much less, a sum of Rs. 25/- as per Schedule Ii of Article 2 (iii) (A) (1) of the Act, and, on such appeal ad valorem court fee is not to be paid, is also pointed out by the counsel placing reliance on Thanappan V, Hassan Kappor [2003 (2) KLT 39]. Scope of review is undoubtedly limited; but, in an appeal, it is submitted, the entire issues are open for further scrutiny by the appellate court. Assailing the correctness of the order of rejection of the review defendant/ 1st respondent filed a counter resisting the applications. The learned Sub Judge vide Ext. P13 common order dismissed Exts. P11 and P12 applications. Challenge in the original petition is against Ext. P13 order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I heard the counsel on both sides.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext. P13 order contending that the learned Sub Judge has proceeded and analysed the grounds canvassed for condoning the delay on an erroneous view that allowing the condonation of delay would amount to circumventing the provisions contained in Section 4A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuations Act {for short “the Act”}. Rejection of the plaint for nonpayment of the court fee within the time where it has been shown that there is no dispute over the agreement of sale, the enforcement of which was sought for through intervention of the court, and also the receipt of substantial sum on the sale price, an amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- by the defendants, was not even appreciated and given any consideration by the court and it has turned down the petition for condonation of delay and also rejected the application for review taking hyper technical views, according to the learned counsel, would demonstrate, if Ext. P13 order is sustained, it would cause grave injustice.

5. Per contra, the very entertainability of the original petiti