IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No. 656 of 2008 --------------------------------- OPELE.406/2002 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT: POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: AMMINI AMMA, AGED 54, W/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, PURNAMI, KOIPALLIKARRAZHAMA, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, PERINGALA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.778 of 2008 in C.R.P.No.656 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Heard counsel on both sides. 2. C.M.Appl.No.778/08 is filed seeking for condonation of delay of 1226 days in filing this revision. The reasons stated by the petitioner is that by order dated 22.11.2004, the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha disposed of the original petition; that application for certified copy of the judgment was filed on 28.4.2008; that copy was obtained on 5.5.2008; that the certified copy was received in the office of the petitioner on 8.5.2008; that as there was no sufficient staff in the office of the petitioner at Kayamkulam, the matter was forwarded to the Regional Head Quarters of the petitioner at Bangalore on 12.5.2008; that on 9.6.2008 the Regional Office granted approval to file the CRP and the file was received on 15.6.2008 and that this revision is filed on 26.6.2008. CRP 656/08 2 3. There is absolutely no explanation in the affidavit as to why no copy application was made from 22.11.2004, the day on which the order assailed was passed, till 28.4.2008, the day on which copy application was filed, when even within that time, the time to prefer revision had already expired. There is no meaning in furnishing any amount of explanation for the delay from 24.8.2008 alone, when there is no explanation at all for the delay of several years between 22.11.2004 and 28.4.2008. Hence, there is absolutely no ground to condone the delay of as much as 1226 days in filing the revision. This C.M. Application is, hence, dismissed. Consequently, the revision is barred by limitation and is dismissed. 4th December, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv