IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 272 of 2008() --------------------- LAR.50/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: PETITIONER (CLAIMANT): -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, THADATHIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, PATTAMTHURUTHU, MANTROTHURUTH (VILLAGE), KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENT: REPONDENT(RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.272 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order in I.A.No.3031 of 2006 in LAR No.50 of 1996 of the Addl.Sub Court, Kollam. The court below refused to enter a proper finding on reference and therefore an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C with a petition to condone the delay was filed. The petition to condone the delay as well as the Order IX 9 Rule 9 petition were dismissed. Against that, the present revision petitioner has moved F.A.O.No.82 of 2008. A C.R.P is maintainable only if the main petition, viz., a petition under Order IX Rule 9 is still pending consideration before a court. Since it is not pending, the remedy for the party is to challenge those findings jointly in an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. The party has resorted to the same. Therefore, I dismiss this civil revision petition with the observation that even if necessary, he can make an amendment to the F.A.O incorporating a prayer to set aside the order in I.A.No.3031/2006 for the CRP 272/2008 -:2:- reason that it is the only appropriate forum which can decide the matter. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-