THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

This review petition remains unnumbered since, according to the Registry, it is filed out of time and there is no application to condone the delay.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department and others v. Aswathy Elsa Mathew, (2008 (2) KHC 414 : (AIR 2008 (NOC) 1959 (Ker)), rendered by one among us (Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) sitting single. That precedent lays down, among other things, that a separate application seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for review of a judgment or order rendered in writ jurisdiction is not necessary. It appears that Article 124 of Part I in the Third Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, was not taken note of, when that case was decided. Article 124 provides a period of thirty days to file an application “for a review of judgment by a Court other than the Supreme Court. That period runs from the date of the decree or order. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the power of review in wr