IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 1649 of 2003(A) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/09/2002 IN IA.1753/01 IN AS.63/1997 OF SUB COURT,THALASSERY. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THUMBATH KUNHIKANNAN S/O. KOTTAN, AGED 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, ARALAM AMSOM, DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID, MR.T.P.SAJID (THALASSERY). RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- MADATHIL PARUKUTTY AMMA (INSANE) THROUGH NEXT FRIEND P.V.SULOCHANA, D/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA, AGED 46 YEARS, KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM, KCP.10/392, THALASSERY TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.No.1649 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 O R D E R A petition moved along with an appeal to condone delay was dismissed for default. The application moved to restore that petition also was turned down. The present revision is challenging the order passed by the court below declining to restore the application moved for taking back the petition to condone the delay. 2. It is conceded by the counsel that consequent to dismissal for default of the petition to condone the delay, the appeal too was rejected. The challenge now is confined only against the order on a petition moved along with the appeal to condone delay. Whether it be the application to restore the previous application or not is not of much significance. The petitioner has to challenge the dismissal of his appeal, which had been rejected, as provided by law. 3. Learned counsel seeks for disposal of the revision, without prejudice to his right to challenge C.R.P.No.1649 of 2003 :: 2 :: the decision rejecting his appeal as time barred, as provided by law. Time taken for prosecuting this revision is also sought to be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in moving an appeal against the order rejecting the appeal as time barred. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was not prosecuting the revision bona fide, whatever be the worth of the challenge made against the impugned order. It is open to the petitioner to seek for exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if at all, an appeal is preferred against the order rejecting the appeal as time barred. Reserving the right to do so, the revision is closed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy//