IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1981 of 2001()
1. JAISON KURIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KURIAKOSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJESH
For Respondent :SRI. RAJAN KALIYATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :30/01/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 1981 OF 2001
---------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred against the order in IA 5485/00 and
IA 5470/00 in O.S. 24/98. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit
was dismissed for default. The plaintiff filed an application with a petition to
condone the delay of 230 days and also to restore the suit. The court
below dismissed the delay condonation application as well as the
restoration application. It is against that decision, the present revision
petition is filed. In the light of the decision reported in Lilly v. Ragesh
[2004 (3) KLT 712] when an application to condone delay as well as
application to set aside ex parte decree is dismissed, no revision lies under
Section115 and the remedy is to prefer appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1.
2. So, in the light of the said decision, this revision petition has to be
dismissed as not maintainable. But earnestly the matter has been
prosecuted before this court for the last 7 years. So when an appeal is
preferred with a petition to condone the delay, the factum of pendency of
revision before this court may be considered as a genuine ground for
condoning the delay.
This civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps