Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the Court below in condoning the delay of 187 days in filing the review application. 2. Heard Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials filed before this Court. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.652 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri in a suit for partition and for other reliefs. The respondent herein is the 4th defendant in the said suit. A preliminary decree came to be passed in the said suit declaring 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. Thereafter she filed I.A.No.1639/1999 for passing final decree. On 17.12.2011 final order was passed in the final decree application. The 4th defendant filed I.A.No.183/2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 187 days in filing review petition in I.A.No.1639 of 1999. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The Court below by considering the rival submissions of the parties, allowed the application subject to payment of cost of Rs.750/- to the plaintiff. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below would show that it has accepted the reason adduced by the respondent herein in seeking to condone the delay of 187 days. It has also been observed by the Court below that merits of the review has to be decided only later. As the Court below found that the reason for the delay has been properly explained, it has allowed the said application also by taking note of the fact that there was no serious objection raised by the respondent in the said application. When that being the factual finding rendered by the Court below while allowing the Section 5 application by exercising its discretion, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same, that too, when the Court has already found that the merits of the review has to be gone into only at the later stage. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the very review petition itself is not maintainable at the instance of the 4th defendant and therefore the delay ought not to have been condoned. 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the very review petition itself is not maintainable at the instance of the 4th defendant and therefore the delay ought not to have been condoned. 5. Certainly it is open to the petitioner to raise all objections before the Court below by filing appropriate counter including the question of maintainability of the review and it is for the Court below to consider those objections and pass order on merits and in accordance with law in the review application. As the only issue before this Court is with regard to the delay in filing the review application and when the Court below has also considered the same and allowed the application, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks direction to dispose of the review at an early date. As the suit is of the year 1994 and final decree came to be passed in the year 2011, the Court below will take up the review application and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.