Judgment :- 1. This is an application for review of the order in CRP. No. 2280 of 1978 on grounds that follow. 2. The application for revision was filed beyond the period of limitation. While condoning the delay, the Court overlooked the fact that the petition for condonation was filed after the application for revision and as such not maintainable. The ground on which the application for condonation was filed was that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court, Alleppey. It was long after the appeal was held to be not maintainable that the revision petition was filed. In returning the appeal memo, the District Court, no doubt, allowed a period of three weeks for presentation. But since that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it was not competent to grant time for representation also. This fact has been overlooked in condoning the delay in the case. The second ground for the review is that the court overlooked the decision in Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT. 806) wherein it has been held that the liability under a kuri security bond is a loan in spite of the fact that payment of the amount due is to be made only in monthly instalments. 2. On the first point regarding the necessity for filing an application for condoning the delay, S.5 of the Limitation Act does not state that delay can be condoned only on an application filed for that purpose. On the other hand, authorities are to the effect that no formal application is necessary for a court to exercise its powers under S.5 of the Limitation Act. (See Kulsoom-un-nisa v. Noor Mohammed (A.I.R.1936 Allahabad 666), Kaura Mal v. Mathra Dossa (AIR. 1959 Punjab 646) and Meghraj v. Jesraj Kasturjee (AIR. 1975 Mad. 137). It is significant to note that under the new Civil Procedure Code specific mention is made in the case of appeals about the necessity to file an application for condoning delay as will be seen from 0.4 R.3A. There is no such provision in the case of an application for revision. Hence absence of an application for condoning delay is no ground for review. 3. As regards sufficiency of cause for condoning delay, it is now well settled that delay can be condoned in the case of mistake of the party in relation to the legal remedy available to him. Hence absence of an application for condoning delay is no ground for review. 3. As regards sufficiency of cause for condoning delay, it is now well settled that delay can be condoned in the case of mistake of the party in relation to the legal remedy available to him. If a litigant who failed in the trial court by mistake due to incorrect legal advice files an appeal where none lies and subsequently files a revision petition beyond the period of limitation, the delay caused can be condoned in proper cases. In the instant case, the party was under the bona fide impression that he could avail of the time granted by the appellate court for presenting the revision petition in this Court. The mistake, if any, was on the part of the Court in granting time for presentation. A party should not be allowed to suffer if he was misled by a wrong order of the Court. Therefore, there is no scope for review of the order on the ground that the application for condonation of delay was allowed on insufficient grounds. 4. The next point urged is that the Court should have considered the kuri security bond as a loan in view of the decision in Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT. 806). Assuming that it is so, the omission on the part of the Court to follow an earlier decision of this Court either by mistake or by inadvertence is not a ground for review. I may also state that the point which arose in the revision petition did not arise for consideration in Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT. 806). The point involved therein was whether a clause in a kuri security bond directing payment in a lump of the future subscriptions in case of default of payment of periodical subscriptions on due dates amounted to an imposition of penalty. That was not a case of a running kuri. In the course of the discussion, there was a casual observation by the Full Bench that a kuri security bond evidences a debito in praesenti although solvenda in futuro. The decision has to be understood in the background of the fact that there was already default by the subscriber. On the other hand, the point involved arose in Varkey Thomas v. Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. (1962 KLT. The decision has to be understood in the background of the fact that there was already default by the subscriber. On the other hand, the point involved arose in Varkey Thomas v. Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. (1962 KLT. 383) where a Division Bench had to consider the point in a case under the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act (31 of 1958). The Court held that "there is no element of borrowing in the case of a prized subscriber receiving the prize money and in executing a hypothecation bond as security for payment of the future subscriptions." The Division Bench followed a Full Bench ruling of the Travancore High Court in XVI T.L.J. 143 and a later Division Bench case of the same Court in XVII T.L.J. 7. The above ruling has not been referred to or overruled in Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT. 806). It is true that a contrary view has been taken in State Bank of Travancore v. May C. George (1976 KLT. 205). The decisions in Varkey Thomas v. Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. (1962 KLT. 383) and Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT. 806) are referred to therein. But there is an essential difference between the above case and the case now under consideration. The question whether the obligation under a kuri security bond was a debt arose in that case also after default was committed and a decree was obtained. In such cases, a debt is created even under the terms of the bond as soon as default is committed. 5. Different considerations apply in the case of a running kuri where no default is committed by the prized subscriber. In such cases, the payment of the kuri subscription is under the terms of the composite agreement evidenced by the kuri vaimbu and the kuri security bond which is provided for in the kuri vaimbu. So long as the starter of the kuri and the subscriber thereof perform their parts of the agreement, neither of them is a debtor of the other. I do not see sufficient grounds fora review of the order already issued. The petition is dismissed. Dismissed.