Thumbath Kunhikannan vs Madathil Parukutty Amma (Insane) on 1 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 1649 of 2003()


1. THUMBATH KUNHIKANNAN S/O. KOTTAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MADATHIL PARUKUTTY AMMA (INSANE)
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.KHALID

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :01/02/2010

 O R D E R
              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
          ------------------------------------------------
                  C.R.P.No.1649 of 2003
          -----------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010

                           O R D E R

A petition moved along with an appeal to

condone delay was dismissed for default. The

application moved to restore that petition also was

turned down. The present revision is challenging the

order passed by the court below declining to restore

the application moved for taking back the petition to

condone the delay.

2. It is conceded by the counsel that

consequent to dismissal for default of the petition to

condone the delay, the appeal too was rejected. The

challenge now is confined only against the order on a

petition moved along with the appeal to condone delay.

Whether it be the application to restore the previous

application or not is not of much significance. The

petitioner has to challenge the dismissal of his

appeal, which had been rejected, as provided by law.

3. Learned counsel seeks for disposal of the

revision, without prejudice to his right to challenge

C.R.P.No.1649 of 2003

:: 2 ::

the decision rejecting his appeal as time barred, as

provided by law. Time taken for prosecuting this

revision is also sought to be exempted under Section

14 of the Limitation Act, in moving an appeal against

the order rejecting the appeal as time barred. There

is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was not

prosecuting the revision bona fide, whatever be the

worth of the challenge made against the impugned

order. It is open to the petitioner to seek for

exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if

at all, an appeal is preferred against the order

rejecting the appeal as time barred.

Reserving the right to do so, the revision is

closed.

Sd/-

(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
SK/-

//true copy//