IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 501 of 2008() --------------------- CMA.7/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT:PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------ K.V.JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY, PENGATTU (H), PULINCUNNU P.O., ALLEPPEY DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT KUDUPADOM, MALEKKUNNU, NR. ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY, PENGATTU (H), PULINCUNNU P.O., ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KUDUPADOM, MALEKKUNNU, NR. ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. ZACHARIA GEORGE OF ..DO..DO... 3. KUNJAMMA JOSE @ ANNAMMA, D/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT PANTHALLORE (H), INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PO., CHANGANACHERRY. 4. ACHAMAKUTTY JACOB, D/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT TRINITY ACRES, WEST SASAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE. 5. FR.ANTONY KUDUPADOM, S/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT P.O.BOX NO.60166, PHOENIX 4068-KSA, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. 6. SR.CONCELIYA, D/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT HOLY CROSS CONVENT, KHEORABAD P.O., SITHAPUR DISTRICT, UTHAR PRADESH. 7. ROSAMMA CHERIYAN, D/O.VARKEY, OPP.SKF DADY'S GARDEN LAY OUT, BORMA SANDRA, BANGALORE. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP.No. 501 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.533 of 2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Alappuzha and first respondent in CMA 7 of 2006. The suit was decreed exparte and petition was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay, which was dismissed by the trial court. CMA 7 of 2006 was filed by respondents 1 and 2, the defendants, to set aside the order dismissing their applications. Under order dated 18.3.2008, learned Sub Judge allowed the applications on payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to be deposited by the District Legal Authority. The order is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that even though learned Sub Judge found that in the order petitioner herein was not represented by a counsel before the appellate court, in fact his counsel was present and the impugned order was passed for the sole reason that petitioner was not represented. If that be the case, remedy of the petitioner is to file a petition to review CRP 501/2008 2 the order. When learned Sub Judge has recorded that petitioner was not represented, this court cannot conduct an enquiry on that question as what is recorded by the court is final on that aspect. In such circumstances, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition to review the order. If an application is filed the learned Sub Judge to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-