ORDER

The petitioner approached the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,46,400/- from the respondents. One tenth of the court fee has been paid along with the plaint by the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to pay the balance court fee of Rs.11,736/- in time, the plaint was rejected on 2.2.2008. The petitioner after remitting the balance court fee filed a review petition which was dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order.

2. Heard both sides. The impugned order was perused.

3. The learned sub judge dismissed the review petition finding that the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (c) CPC is not liable to be reviewed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC as the remedy open to the petitioner is to prefer a regular appeal against the order before the Appellate Court.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner invited my attention to two decisions of this Court., i.e. Cochin Kazag Ltd. v Bharath Cartons (2004(1) KLT S.N. Case No.69 Page 53) and Felix Varkey v Municipal Secretary (2006(4)KLT S.N.Case No.46 Page 31) and submitted that the revision petitioner who is aggrieved by the rejection of his plaint can invoke the power of the Court wh