IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 875 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1679/2003 IN AS.266/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN I.A./APPELLANTS: --------------------- 1. MINA MOL, D/O. DR.BABY, MENACHERRY HOUSE ITHUPADAM HOUSE, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. VARGHESE @ DANY, S/O. DR.BABY, MENACHERRY HOUSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN I.A./RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DR.BABY, S/O. VARGHESE, MENACHERRY HOUSE, ITHUPADAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT CHITHIRA MEDICAL CENTRE, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMANI, D/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING WITH DR. BABY, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1&2 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R1&2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.875 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the appellants in A.S.No.266 of 2003 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. The above appeal was preferred with a petition to condone the delay of 60 days. The application for condonation of delay was allowed on terms fixing the time limit for compliance. The terms having not been complied with within the time fixed, that application was dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. Notice given, the respondents have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. Admittedly, consequent to passing of the impugned order, the appeal too had been dismissed as barred by limitation. Interference with the impugned order by this Court for whatever reasons be will CRP.875/2004 2 not ipso facto lead to annulling of the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. That being so, there is no need to examine the merit of the order impugned in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision is therefore dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp