ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the trial court's refusal to accept the balance amount of court fee offered by the appellants-plaintiffs, being beyond the time prescribed by law. The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit initially with court fee of Rs. 9,840/-and balance of deficit court fees of Rs.88,560/- was to be paid. The learned trial court fixed 2.7.2013 for the payment of the balance court fee. However, according to the appellants-plaintiffs, their learned counsel erroneously recorded the date as 2.8.2013 instead of 2.7.2013 and informed them (appellants-plaintiffs) to do the needful. Finding that neither the appellants-plaintiffs were represented on 2.7.2013 nor the balance court fee deposited, the learned trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was thereafter that an application was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs detailing the above explanation for their default. The appellants-plaintiffs offered alongwith the application, the balance amount of Rs.88,560/- which according to them they had arranged as per the advice of their counsel keeping the dead line of 2.8.2013 in mind and prayed before the trial court to receive the same and to restore the suit. Incidentally the appellants-plaintiffs presented this application as one for review. The learned trial court however rejected this application. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants-plaintiffs before the High Court has met the same fate. 4. Whereas the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has argued that the default on their part in not depositing the balance court fee on 2.7.2013 is unintentional and is due to the mistake committed by their learned counsel in recording the date of the suit as 2.8.2013 for the purpose and not 2.7.2013 and that though belatedly they have arranged the balance court fee and had offered the same alongwith the application for review, which in the interest of justice ought to have been accepted, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in the face of clear mandate of the relevant provisions of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, the default can by no means be condoned. 5. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the singular facts and circumstances of the case, which demonstrate that the default on the part of the appellants-plaintiffs has occurred due to the mistaken date of posting of the suit as recorded by their counsel and that there was neither any deliberate or intentional failure on their part to deposit the balance court fee, we are of the view that it is a fit case, where in the interest of justice, the balance court fee need be accepted by the trial court and the suit be restored to be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. This is more so, as the legislation referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents empowers the court to extend the time of deposit of court fee otherwise prescribed by it. We order accordingly. 6. At this stage, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs that after the rejection of the plaint, the trial court had returned the court fee stamp papers to them (appellants-plaintiffs) which they are even prepared today to re-submit. The learned trial court in view of this order, would consider the prayer, if so made to this effect and pass appropriate orders as permissible in law. 7. As urgency has been expressed on behalf of the respondents in particular, request is made to the learned trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit. 8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. ORDER The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any shall stand disposed of.