IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 FAO.No. 283 of 2007 ---------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2007 IN EA.NO.312/06 IN EP.NO.45/2000 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -------------------------------------------------------------------- K.KUNHALANKUTTY, S/O. KUNHARAMU, RESIDING AT KURUNIYAN HOUSE, P.O.OTHUKUNGAL, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAKKAL BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KHALEED, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KURUKA, KOTTAKKAL, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.NAVAS, SMT.C.S.SIMI. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = FAO.283/2007 & C.M.Appl.1661/2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The application to condone delay is filed on the premise that the order impugned in the appeal was initially challenged in a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC and that said revision having been found to be not maintainable, the appeal in hand has been preferred. This could be a justifiable ground for condoning delay. However, we heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the matter also since the court below has dismissed the application filed by him under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC on the short but firm view that it is barred by limitation in terms of Article 127 of the Limitation Act. The sale was concluded on FAO283/07 & IA1661/07 -: 2 :- 3.10.2005 and the application under Order 21 Rule 90 to set aside that sale was filed on 20.11.2006. These facts are not disputed. Obviously, the application was time barred. There is no legal infirmity, jurisdictional error or factual mistake in the order impugned in the FAO. Therefore, we are of the view that no purpose would be served, even if we are to condone delay. The application for condonation of delay and the appeal, therefore, fail. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1905