IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 776 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13913/2009 DATED 17/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- ASHARAF, S/O.PUZHAKARAYILATH ABDU, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ MANOHARAN, S/O.MADATHINGAL KUMARAN, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.776 of 2009 in W.P.(C).No.13913 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The review petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.13913 of 2009 which was disposed by judgment dated 17.7.2009 negativing the challenges raised by the petitioner against P5 order impugned in that petition passed by the execution court. Petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC raising various grounds. P2 is the copy of that application. That application was dismissed for default. Against the order dismissing Ext.P2 application for default, petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and it was disposed of by P4 order stating that it will be open to the petitioner to seek restoration of P2 application. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed an application with a petition to condone delay to restore P2 application which had been dismissed earlier for default. After considering the merit of that application the execution court dismissed that application vide P5 R.P.No.776 of 2009 2 order. Propriety and correctness of that order was challenged in the above writ petition before this Court and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was closed negativing the challenges raised against P5 order. Review petition has been filed submitting that the order passed by the execution court which was upheld by this Court is not correct for the reason that in respect of a review petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable and execution court was not correct in holding that the petition was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Kshemanidhi Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd v. Ashokan (2008 (4) KLT 744) to contend that in respect of a review petition relating to an order passed in execution proceedings, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find there is no merit in the review petition. P2 is the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC R.P.No.776 of 2009 3 and that was dismissed. Long thereafter, petitioner moved a petition to restore that application with a petition to condone delay. No purpose will be served even by allowing the review petition since the application under Order XXI Rule 90 has to be filed within the time limit fixed. I do not find any merit in the petition and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-