IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 615 OF 2009() -------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT ------------------------------- D.RAJENDRAN, SREE NIVAS, THEKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM. SRI. C. UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C. FOR KSCDC LTD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 615/2009 IN F.A.O. 235/2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. Appeal was against an order dismissing the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. The suit was one for recovery of money. It was contended that the appellant/petitioner has no means to pay the court fee of Rs. 1,29,420/-. We perused the order of the court below and by judgment dated 1st June, 2009, the appeal was dismissed on merits. The court below found that in cross examination, the appellant/petitioner himself admitted that he was residing in a rented house and there were some movables, details of which were not disclosed in the petition and hence the requirement as contemplated by the rule was not satisfied. There was also some evidence to show that petitioner has some business and income therefrom. This, however, was not shown or disclosed in the petition. It was appreciating the above facts, that the court below dismissed the petition. The suit is of the year 1999. No grounds were made out to interfere with the finding reached by the court below and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 2. The present review petition is filed stating that the appellant could RP 615/2009 :2: not bring to the notice of the court certain aspects. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/review petitioner. According to him, the fact that there was some defect in the petition may not entail in total dismissal of the case, rather he sought for an opportunity to amend the petition curing the defect. It is too late to seek for such a prayer. The appellant could have done so by making such a request by filing an appropriate petition before the court below. At this belated stage we do not think that the petitioner could be given such an opportunity. Further, as contemplated by the rules when all the facts are not brought out and disclosed in the schedule, the application is liable to be dismissed, which alone has been doe. As a matter of fact, this was not rejected at the admission stage; but opportunity was given to adduce evidence and it is only after considering the materials placed on record, that the petition was dismissed. If so, we find no ground to review the judgment rendered. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-