High Court Kerala High Court

Beevathu vs Kasim on 6 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Beevathu vs Kasim on 6 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 637 of 2009()


1. BEEVATHU, D/O KUNJU MUHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KASIM, S/O AMMANATH MUSTHAFA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :06/08/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

              ------------------------------------------
                   R.P.NO. 637 OF 2009
                                 in
                 R.S.A.NO.1009 OF 2005
              ------------------------------------------

               Dated       6th    August       2009


                           O R D E R

This petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1

of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment

dismissing the second appeal consequent to the

dismissal of C.M.A.646/2005, an application filed

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the

delay. C.M.A.646/2005 was in fact originally

allowed on payment of cost of RS.1,000/- within two

weeks from 17/9/2007 making it clear that in default

the petition will stand dismissed. As the cost was not

paid within time, it was dismissed. Consequently

the appeal was also dismissed. Case of the petitioner

is that the failure to comply with the condition

within the time was not willful or due to negligence

but was an inadvertent omission and petitioner had in

fact paid the cost to the respondent and in such

circumstances, the order dismissing the application

for condonation of delay as well as dismissal of the

RP 637/09
2

appeal are to be reviewed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submitted that as cost has been received by

the respondent, respondent has no objection for

allowing the application.

3. In such circumstances, R.P.637/2009 is

allowed. Order dismissing C.M.P.646/2005 and consequent

dismissal of R.S.A.1009/2005 dated 10/10/2007 are

reviewed. As the delay stands condoned on payment of

cost, post the appeal for admission before the

appropriate court.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.