JUDGMENT 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 writ jurisdiction could be traced independent of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for review of a judgment or order of the High Court, can be filed only within the period of limitation of 30 days, even if the judgment or order sought to be reviewed is one rendered in writ jurisdiction and the period of limitation will be determined in period terms of Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act which defines the term limitation. Since the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to such an application for review, delay can be condoned only on an application made invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. To that extent, the decision in Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department and others (AIR 2008 (NOC) 1959 (Ker.)) (supra) does not lay down the law correctly and is hereby overruled on that point. To that extent, the decision in Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department and others (AIR 2008 (NOC) 1959 (Ker.)) (supra) does not lay down the law correctly and is hereby overruled on that point. The law is that an application for review of judgment or order issued by the High Court, in any jurisdiction, including writ jurisdiction, would be governed by the Limitation Act as noted above and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay has to be filed in cases where the review petition is not filed within the period prescribed in Article 124. Hence, this review petition is defective without an application seeking condonation of delay. Now that an application seeking condonation of delay is filed, let that C.M. Application and Review Petition be numbered and sent up. Order accordingly.