IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946 RFA NO. 582 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE AND THE ORDER REJECTING THE PLAINT IN OS NO.81 OF 2015 DATED 7.4.2016 OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

JANARDHANAN AGED 57, S/O.PANAKAL VASU, NATTIKA AMSOM DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

SIVAPRASAD AGED 65 YEARS AGED 65, S/O.VELIPARAMBIL PADINJATTETHIL MANIKYAN,PALLIPURAM DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE,CHAVAKKAD TALUK 680001 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Sathish Ninan, &

Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ.

==============================

R.F.A.No.582 of 2016 ==========================

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2025

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The appeal is filed against the rejection of a plaint for non-payment of balance court fee.

2. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, pending the appeal, the appellant – plainitff had filed an application seeking review of the order of rejection. The said application was allowed; the court fee paid was accepted. Thereafter, the suit was tried and a decree was passed infavour of the plaintiff.

3. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent, there is no appearance.

4. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff – appellant, as noted above, we do not think that anything further survives in the appeal for consideration.

Clarifying that the parties shall be bound by the decree subsequently passed in the suit after restoration, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge Sd/-

Shoba Annamma Eapen, Judge rsr