IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 286 of 2009() ---------------------------------- OS.523/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------------ JOSEPH, S/O.VINCENT, PALLIVILAKAN PURAYIDAM, POOTHURA, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------ APPI AMMAL GIRIJA, G.R.G.BHAVAN, PUNNAKKULATHU, MALAMELKUNNU, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.286 of 2009 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner has filed this revision challenging the dismissal of an application moved by him for setting aside an ex-parte decree with a petition for condoning the delay. Petitioner was absent when the application was taken for consideration by the learned Munsiff. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. The learned Munsiff has made some comments on the merit of the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the decree and also for condonation of delay. Whatever be the comments made by the learned Munsiff, it is needless to point out the dismissal of the petition was one for default. Appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to move for restoring the I.A. in accordance with the provisions under law. Revision is not entertainable and it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings as envisaged by law, if so advised. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-