IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 CRP.No. 181 of 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.1.2011 IN I.A.NO.4377 OF 2010 IN OS.NO.585/2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF: --------------------- VINUMON MATHEW NEDUMATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA PO, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT: CR.PETITIONER: DEFENDANT: --------------- K.JAYAKRISHNAN, ARAKKAL HOUSE KARAPUZHAKARA, KOTTAYAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 181 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.585 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. The suit was for realisation of money. The suit was decreed on 31.8.2010. It is stated that in the order sheet it is mentioned thus: “The suit is decreed with costs.” While the petitioner got certified copy of the judgment, it was realised that there was no award of costs. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4377 of 2010 to correct the judgment and decree to include costs as well. As per order dated 5.1.2011, the learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.No.4377 of 2010 holding that the suit was decreed without costs and that the mistake occurred not in the judgment but in the order sheet. The order dated 5.1.2011 is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. The court below has made it clear that there was no mistake in the judgment liable to be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The mistake was in the order sheet. The remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal against the decree. C.R..P. NO.181 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at this stage an appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, it would be barred by limitation. Certainly, the petitioner could very well say that the period during which he was prosecuting I.A.No.4377 of 2010 should be excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing the appeal. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/