IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1632 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2006 IN CRMP 1016/2005 IN CRRP....../2005 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- HAJIYARAKATH BEERANKUTTY,S/O.IMBICHI BAVA, KADAVNAD AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ENIKKANTEKATH KUNHEEVI, D/O.KHADER, PONANI NAGARAM, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1632 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondent No.2. 2. Order under challenge in this revision is of the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri in C.M.P.No.1016 of 2005. Petitioner suffered an exparte order under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of rights on divorce) Act. He filed application before the trial court to set aside the exparte order with an application to condone the delay. Those applications were dismissed against which he filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, that also with an application to condone the delay. On that application (C.M.P.No.1016 of 2005) learned Sessions Judge passed an order on 7.7.2006 that the application to condone the delay will be allowed on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.500/- as cost and Rs.50,000/- on or before 3.8.2006. Petitioner sought for and obtained extension of time to comply with the order. Still, he could not deposit the amount as directed. Consequently C.M.P.No.1016 of 2005 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that this revision is not maintainable since the bar under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) would apply as the order under challenge is Crl.R.P.No.1632/2009 2 interlocutory in nature. I am afraid, that contention cannot be sustained since by the impugned order the request of the petitioner to condone delay stands disallowed and consequently revision also would be dismissed. Therefore, the order under challenge is not interlocutory in character. 4. Next contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that at any rate this revision is not maintainable in view of Section 397(3) of the Code since a second revision by this Court is not sustainable as consequent to the impugned order the revision filed by the petitioner in the Sessions Court would be dismissed. This argument also cannot be sustained since what is challenged in this revision is the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount as directed by the learned Sessions Judge within one month from this day. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 reminds me that the exparte order was passed in the year 2001 and that revision is filed only after about five years. I am however, in this proceedings not required to go into the question whether the delay is liable to be condoned since learned Sessions Judge has already found so and directed that on deposit of the amounts stated in the impugned order the application would be allowed. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to deposit the amounts within one month. 6. At this stage, counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the sum of Rs.50,000/- if deposited by the petitioner may be allowed to be withdrawn by Crl.R.P.No.1632/2009 3 respondent No.1. I leave that issue to the decision of learned Sessions Judge at the appropriate time. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in the following lines: Crl.M.P.No.1016 of 2005 will stand allowed and the impugned order and the consequent order if any passed in the revision will stand set aside if the petitioner deposited Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- in the Sessions Court within one month from this day. On the impugned order being set aside as above, learned Sessions Judge shall take on file the revision petition filed by the petitioner if it is otherwise in order. It is made clear that in case of non- compliance, this revision will stand dismissed on the expiry of the said period of one month. Crl.M.A.No..4962 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks