IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 637 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.1009/2005 .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN THE SECOND APPEAL: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BEEVATHU, D/O KUNJU MUHAMMED, AMBALATH VEETIL, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE SECOND APPEAL: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KASIM, S/O AMMANATH MUSTHAFA, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.NO. 637 OF 2009 in R.S.A.NO.1009 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------ Dated 6th August 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment dismissing the second appeal consequent to the dismissal of C.M.A.646/2005, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. C.M.A.646/2005 was in fact originally allowed on payment of cost of RS.1,000/- within two weeks from 17/9/2007 making it clear that in default the petition will stand dismissed. As the cost was not paid within time, it was dismissed. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Case of the petitioner is that the failure to comply with the condition within the time was not willful or due to negligence but was an inadvertent omission and petitioner had in fact paid the cost to the respondent and in such circumstances, the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as dismissal of the RP 637/09 2 appeal are to be reviewed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as cost has been received by the respondent, respondent has no objection for allowing the application. 3. In such circumstances, R.P.637/2009 is allowed. Order dismissing C.M.P.646/2005 and consequent dismissal of R.S.A.1009/2005 dated 10/10/2007 are reviewed. As the delay stands condoned on payment of cost, post the appeal for admission before the appropriate court. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.