This order dismisses a review petition filed by a bank customer challenging a judgment granting interim protection against dispossession. The High Court found the petitioner chosen not to participate in proceedings where a notice was issued, rejecting the claim that he lacked notice.
The review petition was dismissed.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939
RP.No. 813 of 2017 (J)
WP(C) 21092/2017 of THIS HON'BLE COURT -------
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
----------------------------
SHAHUL HAMEED M.P
S/O. NURUDHEEN, M.P. MANZIL, MARAKKATTU PARAMBATH HOUSE, VAIDYARANGADI P.O. RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
SRI.M.SANTHY SRI.M.P.JAYAN SMT.M.D.BEENA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. INDIAN BANK KALLAI ROAD BRANCH, BY-PASS JUNCTION, MANAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE-7, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER,
BY SRI.S.EASWARAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. R.P.No.813 of 2017
in W.P.(C).No.21092 Of 2017
............................................................. Dated this the 9th day of October, 2017
O R D E R
The review petition has been filed seeking a review of the judgment dated 24.08.2017 in W.P(C).No.21092 of 2017, which directed that an interim order against dispossession, that was passed by this Court on 30.06.2017, would continue to be in force for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment so as to enable the petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the notice issued to him by the Advocate Commissioner. In the review petition, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no notice communicated to him by the Advocate Commissioner, and therefore, he is not in a position to move the DRT as directed in the judgment. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank, however, would produce before me a copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that appointed the Advocate Commissioner. A perusal of the said order dated 31.03.2017 in C.M.P.No.192 of 2017 would clearly indicate
R.P.No.813 of 2017 in W.P.(C).No.21092 Of 2017 2
that although the petitioner herein was the 1st respondent in the C.M.P and notice was sent to the petitioner, the said notice was returned unclaimed. It is apparent, therefore, that the petitioner himself chose not to participate in the proceedings before the Magistrate and hence, the petitioner cannot be heard to say, at this distance of time, that he was not aware of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner proposing to take possession. I, therefore, find no reasons to review the judgment dated 24.08.2017 in W.P(C).No.21092 of 2017. The review petition therefore fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/09.10.17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim lack of notice for a CPC appointment order after the notice was returned unclaimed by him.
Whether there is any reason to review the judgment dated 24.08.2017 in W.P.(C).No.21092 of 2017.
Shahul Hameed M.P
Indian Bank Kallai Road Branch
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
