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. 132 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/07/2007 IN IA. 5576 /2006 IN OS.93/2001 COURT of II ADDL.SUB JUDGE,KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF --------------------------- P.SREEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.APPUNNI NAIR ROOM NO. G-47, MOFFUSIL BUS STAND BUILDING I.G. ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANT ---------------------- CORPORATION OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CALICUT-32. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP NO.132/2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO.398/2008 IN CRP NO.132/2008 DISMISSED. 26/03/2008 Sd/-(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 132 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode whereby he had dismissed I.A.Nos.5575/06, 5576/06 and 5577/06 in O.S.93/01. The plaintiff who is the revision petitioner herein moved a suit for injunction to restrain the Corporation from demanding enhancement of rent and also from eviction. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that he was not treated on equal par with the other occupants and therefore he must be also given such benefits. The plaint was rejected on the ground that balance Court fee was not paid. It was done on 1.1.2002 and with a delay of 57 months and 13 days an application is filed to review the order under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The contention is that there was some agreement between the petitioner and the Secretary of the Corporation and therefore he had taken it for granted that the matter will be settled between the parties and that has caused the delay. The Court below did not appreciate this contention. One can CRP NO. 132 of 2008 -:2:- understand the delay but not a delay of this extend especially in a case where the plaint is rejected for non payment of Court fee. The Court below found that reasons stated for condoning the delay are not proper and I do not find any irregularity or illegality with the same. Really, the statutory remedy is to file an appeal against the rejection of the plaint and on account of the various decisions of this Court a review application is also maintainable. But a review application can be considered only on the ground of inaccuracy on the face of the record or in spite of due diligence not able to furnish adequate security before the Court or for any other sufficient reasons. None of these reasons are present in the petition to review the order as well. Therefore on both grounds C.R.P. should fail. Hence the C.R.P. lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-