The order under challenge, in this Civil Revision Petition is the one rendered by the Trial Court concerned (Additional Subordinate Judge, Palakkad), on 19.07.2017, whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to impugn the rejection of the plaint for non-payment of the court fee, has been dismissed.

2. Heard, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Murikkan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

3. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No. 235/2013 on the file of the Additional Sub Court Palakkad. It is not in dispute that the plaint was rejected for non-payment of balance court fee and the said order was rendered without hearing the counsel for the plaintiff in as much as he could not attend to the said court on that day. Thereupon the petitioner had filed I.A.No. 4860/2016 in O.S.No. 235/2013 under Order 46 of CPC to review the order rejecting the plaint on 29.09.2015.

4. A defect was noted in the said review petition. After curing the defect, the review petition was duly filed but there was a delay of 30 days in re-presenting the review petition after curing the defect. The petitioner had filed I.A.No. 3701/2015 in O.S.No. 235/2013 to condone the delay in re-presenting the review petition after curing defects. I.A.No. 3701/2015 in O.S.No. 235/2013 was allowed on 21.12.2016, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost within 15 days. It is not in dispute that the cost was duly paid on 03.01.2017 and the review petition was taken to file as I.A.No. 4867/2016 in O.S.No. 235/2013. Thereafter the petitioner had remitted the balance court fees on 20.01.2017 immediately on the review petition being taken to file and numbering the same.

5. Later the court below has dismissed the above said review petition, filed as I.A.No. 4867/2016 in the above O.S.No. 235/2013 on the ground that the balance court fee was remitted only on 21.01.2017, that is one year and three months after filing the review petition. The said reasoning of the Trial Court in the impugned order appears to be wrong. In the review petition filed by the petitioner, a defect was noted by the Registry of the court below and the petitioner had cured the defect, but there was a delay of 30 days in that regard for which a separate application was filed for representing the review petition after curing the defect. I.A.No. 3701/2015 in the O.S.No. 235/2015 was filed to condone the delay in representing the review petition after curing the defects. The said I.A was allowed on 21.12.2016 after directing the petitioner to pay cost within 15 days. The said cost was also paid within the said time limit. It is thereafter, the review petition was taken to file and numbered as I.A.No. 486/2016. It is also not in dispute that the petition to condone the delay in representing the review petition was allowed only on 03.01.2017. Immediately thereafter the petitioner had remitted the balance court fee on 21.12.2017. Therefore, the petitioner could not have remitted the balance fee before the numbering of the review petition. Hence, the above said reasoning of the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 19.07.2017 that there was a delay of one year and three months after filing the review petition in remitting the court fee etc. is wrong.

6. The Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the remedy of a party like the present petitioner who is aggrieved by the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of the balance court fee is not to file a review petition but to file an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC as has been held in the decision in Mable v. Dolores reported in 2001 KHC 467 = 2001(2) KLT 612. The abovesaid contention raised by the respondent based on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mable v. Dolores reported in 2001 (2) KLT 612, does not appear to be tenable. A reading of the said judgment