IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1010 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RFA.107/2007 Dated 13/09/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------ K.A.FRANCIS, S/O.LATE ANTONY, KOVATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MENON BAZAR AZHEEKODE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.POULOSE (KORATTY) RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT&RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 TO 6: --------------------- 1. K.A.ALOSHIOUS, S/O.LATE ANTONY, KOVATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, OPPOSITE SUVARNA ARTS, KALAVATHU ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 2. K.D.GEORGE, S/O.LATE DEVASSY, KOVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, LPS ROAD, -DO- -DO- 3. K.A.SABASTIAN, S/O.LATE ANTONY, KOVATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANEPARAMBU, HARITHA LANE, VENNALA, -DO- , -DO- 4. XAVIER, S/O.OUSEPH, VELIYIL HOUSE, PALLATH ROAD, THAMMANAM, PALARIVATTOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5. BIJU, S/O.XAVIER, VELIYIL HOUSE, PALLATH ROAD, -DO- -DO- 6. PRIYAM D/O. XAVIER, --DO- -DO- THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 1814/2008 & R.P. 1010/2008 IN R.F.A. 107 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. C.M. Appln. 1814/2008 is a petition for condonation of delay of 326 days caused in fling the review petition. The application is supported by an affidavit. The petitioner is the third respondent in the appeal. The suit was one for partition. Eventually a preliminary decree and a final decree was passed against which an appeal was preferred by the second respondent which was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a Review Petition as R.P. 1024/2007 which also ended in dismissal. Petitioner was a party to both the appeal as well as to the review. According to him, he was away at the time of the disposal of the matter. It is thereafter that the present review is filed at his instance and he is seeking to condone the delay of 326 days in filing the review petition. 2. No acceptable explanation is offered for the delay in filing the review petition. Further, petitioner himself has not filed any appeal. He C.M. APPLN. 1814 & R.P.1010/08 :2: was only a respondent in the appeal. The appeal was filed by the second defendant and the same was dismissed. Therefore, he cannot say that the dismissal of the appeal by this Court has in any way affected his right since the dismissal of the appeal resulted only in confirming the decree passed by the court below and that too after considering the matter on merits. If he is otherwise affected, he would have filed an appeal. Further, after the dismissal of the appeal, the second respondent filed a review petition which was also dismissed after hearing the parties. Further, no grounds are made out for reviewing the order. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the review petition. The application for condonation of delay and the review petition are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V.K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-