JUDGMENT

Defendants 2 and 3 in a suit for partition are the petitioners in the original petition. There was a preliminary decree in the suit and a final decree thereafter. Exts.P1 and P2 are the preliminary and final decrees respectively. The petitioners preferred Ext.P4 application seeking review of the final decree passed in the suit. Ext.P4 application was rejected as the same was preferred without paying the court fee payable on the review petition. The petitioners thereafter preferred Ext.P6 application for restoration of the review petition after remitting the court fee payable and Ext.P7 application for condoning the delay in preferring Ext.P6 application. Exts.P6 and P7 applications now stand dismissed by Ext.P12 order. Ext.P12 order is under challenge in the original petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. In so far as the review petition was preferred without paying court fee, the court should have afforded the petitioners an opportunity to cure the defect in the review petition before the same was rejected as defective. Had the said course been adopted by the court, the petitioners could have represented