ORDER :

Ajithkumar, J.

The Registry raised an objection that the valuation of the appeal for the purpose of court fees and the court fees levied and paid as provided under Article 3(iii)(A)(1) of Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 is wrong. The Registry took the stand that the suit having been dismissed on answering one of the issues framed by the court, the appeal should be valued and court fees paid as provided under Section 52 of the Act. That is to say on ad valorem.

2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the remedy of the appellant in the matter is as provided under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, in the absence of any adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit, whereas it was dismissed on answering a preliminary issue regarding maintainability alone, payment of court fees ad valorem is not required. In that regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on Beena K.G. v. Keshavam [2016 (3) KLT 117].

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

4. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2021 in O.S.No.2014 of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam. The suit was filed