Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for GCDA and learned Government Pleader. The application for condonation of delay in instituting the appeal is attributed to the time taken for prosecuting an application for review before the learned single Judge and also certain other grounds, which are attempted to be put u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the grounds taken in support of that application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Hence, delay condoned.

2. On to the writ appeal, it appears that what was projected before the learned single Judge is the complaint that there was demand of building tax under the KBT Act, 1975 without sanction of law, on the facts of the case. The learned single Judge addressed that issue in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment and repelled that ground. Immediately, a request was made for an installment facility. That was granted. The application for review before the learned single judge was on the ground that no concession was made by the request for installments. In law, we are clear that the request and grant