The Court dismissed a review petition filed by a loan defaulter challenging an order that dismissed his writ petition, holding that a review is not maintainable when the underlying judgment relegated the petitioner to an appeal.
The Review Petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930
RP.No. 111 of 2009() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3793/2008 Dated 28/08/2008 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER
---------------------------------------------
A.SUMESH KUMAR,S/O.APPUKUTTAN ASAN, 'MEENA' T.C.21/1436, NEDUMCAUD,KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------
1. REPCO BANK (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,SHALIMAR COMPLEX,SUBRAMANIAM,THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,REPCO BANK, SHALIMAR COMPLEX,SUBRAMANIAM,THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
MR. U.K. RAMAKRISHNAN -ADV.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------R.P.NO.111 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C)No.3793 OF 2008
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The petitioner is a defaulter in re-payment of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents. Proceedings have been initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for coercive recovery of the amounts due. An interim order was granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner deposits amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, payable on or before the 15th of every month commencing from February, 2008 without fail. The petitioner did not pay the instalments as directed, except two instalments. Accordingly, when the writ petition came up on 18.8.2008, I vacated the interim order, since the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the interim order. Again, the matter came up on 28.8.2008, when I dismissed the writ petition itself relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner has now filed
R.P.No.111/09
2
the review petition against that judgment. I directed the learned counsel for the bank to obtain instructions from the bank. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the bank has offered that if the petitioner pays the entire amounts due within one month, they are prepared to accept the same. The petitioner is not in a position to accept that offer also.
In the above circumstances, the Review Petition was heard on merits. As far as the judgment was on merits relegating the petitioner to the remedy by way of appeal, I do not think that any review petition is maintainable against that judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
R.P.No.111/09 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable against a judgment dismissing a writ petition by relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal.
A.SUMESH KUMAR
REPCO BANK
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
