IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 942 OF 2001() --------------------- {IN IA.694/2000 & 695/21000 IN OS.398/1995 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNY, S/O.PAILY, KORATTYKALLIL HOUSE, OLIYAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. GEORGE, S/O.ULAHANNAN, DO. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DAMODHARAN, S/O.RAMAN, ARAKKAKANDAMPEEDIKAYIL, CHITTAMADATHIL, OLIYAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.DAMODHARAN, DO. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.M.P.No.2301 of 2001 & C.R.P.No.942 of 2001 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha dismissing the application moved by the defendant (revision petitioner) for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him in O.S.No.398/95 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The revision has been filed with a petition (C.M.P.No.2301 of 2001) to condone delay of 30 days. 2. The order impugned can be challenged by way of an appeal as provided under Order XIVIII Rule 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and so much so, the revision is not maintainable. 3. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal, if so advised, the revision is only to be dismissed. As there is nothing to indicate that the revision petitioner was not prosecuting the revision C.R.P.No.942 of 2001 :: 2 :: bona fide, it is open to him to seek for exemption of the period during which the revision was prosecuted before this court, invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the court in which the appeal, if any, is preferred. Subject to the above observations, the delay petition and revision are dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.