IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 3150 of 2001(F) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/02/1999 IN IA. 1045 /1991 IN AS.38/1991 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS -------------------------------- 1. N.JANAKI AMMA EDAPPANAKIZHAKATHIL VEEDU, VETTIKKAVALA, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, MELILA VILLAGE. 2. L.PONNAMMA, DO. DO. BY ADV. MR. D.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): IST CR. PETITIONER / IST RESPONDENT ------------------------- N.KOCHUNARAYANA PILLAI KUZHIELIL EEDU, NADUKKUNNU MURI, MELILA VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.3401/2001 IN CRP. NO.3150/2001 DISMISSED 24/11/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.3150 OF 2001 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kottarakara declining to condone delay of 607 days in preferring an appeal namely A.S No.38 of 1991 challenging an exparte decree. The learned Sub Judge was not satisfied of the grounds canvassed for condonation of delay. Though notice was issued, after acceptance, respondent has not appeared. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the impugned order challenged in the revision with reference to submissions made by the counsel, I find no reason for interference. No material was placed to substantiate the grounds canvassed for condoning the delay. Revision lacks merit, and it is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE