The present review petition is filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC by the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1546/04 on the file of this Court seeking review of order dated:19.06.2008 dismissing the said revision petition. There has been delay of about 268 days in filing this review petition and therefore the petitioner herein has filed an application (Misc.Cvl.6941/2009) seeking condoning of said delay.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri. Rajgopal. Learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri. M. Shivappa. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the order of this Court dated:19.6.08 passed in C.R.P.No.1546/2004 which is sought to be reviewed. Also perused the affidavit sworn to by Sri. Ganesh, the next friend of the review petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay.

2. Stated in brief. Facts leading to the present review petition are as under:-

a. The respondent M. Manju obtained an ex-parte decree dated: 5.10.2001 in O.S.No.62/2000 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Mandya. Against the review petitioner-defendant for specific performance. The respondent plaintiff filed Execution Case No. 50/2002 seeking execution of the said decree. The Execution Court allowed the said Execution petition and consequently the plaintiff got the sale deed dated:30.1.2003 executed through Court in his favour in terms of the said decree.

b. Thereafter. On 21.2.2003, the review petitioner-defendant filed his application under Order 9 Rule 13 in Misc. 6/2003 on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.). Mandya seeking setting aside of the said ex-parte decree dated:5.10.2001 passed in O.S.No.62/2000. The said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court by its order dated:7.10.2004 and the said exparte decree came to be set-aside.

c. Aggrieved by the said order of Trial Court. The plaintiff filed CRP No.1546/04 before this Court. After hearing both the parties. this Court. by the order dated:19.6.2008 allowed the said CRP (1546/04) on some technical ground and thereby set aside the order dated:7.10.2004 passed in Misc.No.6/2003 by the Trial Court on the application of the defendant filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in the said suit. It is this order of this Court. Which is sought to be reviewed in this petition.

3. The points that arise for my consideration in this review petition are as under:

(i) Whether the delay of 268 days caused in filling this review petition deserves to be condoned as prayed for in Misc.Cvl.6941/2009 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the Review Petitioner:

(ii) Whether the order dated:19.6.2008 passed in CRP No. 1546/04 on the file of this Court allowing said CRP deserves to be reviewed as prayed for in the present review petition.

My findings on both the points are in the affirmative for the following.

REASONS

4. point No.(i). The petitioner Lakshmana is represented by one Ganesh as his next friend. At the outset. Sri. M. Shivappa. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent plaintiff strongly contended that said Ganesh who is respondent No.2 in CRP No. 1546/2004 has no authority whatsoever to represent said Lakshmana who is first respondent in the said CRP (No. 1546/04) and therefore the present review petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground only. On perusal of the records in CRP No. 1546/2004. it is seen that the first respondent Lakshmana therein had been represented by G. Ganesh as is next friend and it is the said Ganesh who has signed the Vakalath on behalf of the said Lakshmana and the said vakalath was accepted by this Court. Therefore, the submission of M. Shivappa. Learned Senior counsel that the said Ganesh has no authority whatsoever to represent the review petitioner Lakshmana cannot be accepted.

5. Sri. Rajgopal. Learned counsel for the review petitioner. Placing reliance on several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. contended that the next friend of review petitioner has explained in his affida