IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 1432 of 2003() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2002 IN IA.5314/2001 IN OS.680/1995 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------- K.A.XAVIER S/O. THRESSIA, KOCHUPARAMBIL, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND SON SRI.JOSY, S/O. K.A.XAVIER, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.A.L.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): CR.PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- K.X.ALLESH, S/O. XAVIER, KOTTAZHETH HOUSE, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P.NO.1432 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated 25th January 2010 O R D E R Defendant in O.S.680/1995 filed the revision challenging the order passed by the learned Sub Judge in I.A.5314/2001 dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. That application was filed to condone the delay of 738 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. Petitioner has no case that any appeal is filed challenging dismissal of the application filed under Rule 13 of Order IX of Code of Civil Procedure. In such circumstances, revision as such will not lie. Even otherwise, the very basis of the Crp 1432/03 2 application was the contention that defendant was not mentally fit to contest the suit when ex-parte decree was passed. As per order in C.R.P.2623/2002 revision petition filed against dismissal of other application filed under Rule 15 of Order XXXII of Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.