IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1094 of 2005() -------------------------------- CMA.21/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.161/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA (IA 2260/05) .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ PETITIONER (3RD PARTY) ----------------------------- PRAKASAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, THAKIDIVELIYIL, KALAVOOR, MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------- 1. MANOHARAN C.K., S/O. KRISHNAN, CHETHIKKATTU VELI, MANNANCHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. T.S. PRATHAPAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, THAKIDIVELIYIL, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP. NO.1094/2005 ORDER ON IA. NO.3114/2005 IN CRP. NO.1094/2005 DISMISSED 22.01.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1094 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 9.9.05 in CMA 21/05. Notice is served on the respondents. No appearance. The CMA had arisen out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Alappuzha in I.A.2260/05 in O.S.161/04. It was an application filed by a third party for lifting the attachment. It is the case of the said person that he had purchased the property from the first respondent in the claim application one month prior to the institution of the suit itself and therefore as on the date of the suit he has no right over the property and therefore attachment cannot be effected. However the trial court dismissed the application. Against that he preferred a CMA with a petition to condone the delay of one day. As no steps was taken for issuing notice to R2, the learned District Judge dismissed the delay condonation application and as a consequence also the CMA. It is against that order the present CRP is filed. CRP NO. 1094 of 2005 -:2:- 2. I feel the District Court has been harsh on the revision petitioner. There is only a delay of one day and it should have given some time for the revision petitioner to take steps against the 2nd respondent. Therefore I set aside the order under challenge, restore the delay condonation application as well as the CMA to file and direct the Court below to permit the revision petitioner herein to take out summons to the 2nd respondent in the delay condonation application and thereafter proceed to dispose of the delay condonation application and CMA in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-