Partly allowed

Ebbes Mathew v. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited

Kerala HC18 Jul 2019WP(C)/7874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court vacated a previously delivered judgment on bailment/mortgage related W.P.(C).No.7874 of 2019 due to a review petition by a petitioner claiming she was tricked into filing it by her son. The original petition challenging the financial institution's directions was subsequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment dated 19.03.2019 in W.P.(C).No.7874 of 2019 vacated; main writ petition dismissed.

Ebbes Mathew Vs Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7874 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 EBBES MATHEW AGED 41 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE MAHTEW, MUTTATHETHU HOUSE, PALANGARA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPURAM-679 330

¶8

2 MARRY KUTTY EBBES, W/O. EBBES MAHTEW, MUTTATHETHU HOUSE, PALANGARA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPURAM-679 330

¶9

3 KUNJAMMAL, W/O. VARGHESE MAHTEW, MUTTATHETHU HOUSE, PALANGARA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPURAM-679 330

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ANOOP

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600014, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, VIVEK P.B.,

¶13

SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE,SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.7874 of 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

I am taking up this writ petition today

¶18

with the full consent all the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶19

I had earlier heard this case on 19^th

¶20

March, 2019, and had delivered a judgment. However, on the application of the 3^rd petitioner herein in R.P.No. 608 of 2019, I have vacated the judgment for the reasons that have been stated in the order in the said review petition, which is extracted as below:-

¶21

The review petitioner, who is the 3^rd writ petitioner in W.P(C)No.7874 of 2019, has filed this petition alleging that her son, namely, the 1^st writ petitioner had obtained a signature in the litigation papers without her being aware that he was proposing to file a writ petition, as has been done through W.P(C)No.7874 of 2019. She says that had she been aware that her signatures were being used by her son for this purpose, she would not have agreed to file W.P(C)No.7874 of 2019 and therefore, prays that she may not be bound by the directions issued by this Court in the judgment, dated 19^th of March, 2019.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st writ petitioner, who has been arrayed as the 1^st respondent in this review petition, submits that W.P(C)No.7874 of 2019 was filed jointly by him and his mother because all the properties involved are lying jointly, though under different title documents. He says that he is unable to comment further on the allegations made against his client by the review petitioner, asserting that they are not in good terms.

¶23

Shri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, the learned

¶24

WP(C).No.7874 of 2019 3

¶25

Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondentFinancial Institution, submits that this review petition has been filed under a collaborated stratagem between the review petitioner and her son-the 1^st respondent herein, to wriggle out of the obligations cast upon them in the judgment dated 19^th March, 2019. He says that to the best information of his client, the mother and son are still together and that their present attempt is an abuse of the processes of law. He, therefore, prays that this review petition be dismissed.

¶26

Even though I find some force in the submissions of Shri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, since it is impossible for this Court to verify whether the mother and son are estranged as of today or whether they had any difference of opinion at the time when the writ petition was filed, they being essentially questions of fact, I am of the view that this judgment, which is stated to have been obtained without the volition of the review petitioner, need not be allowed to operate. This is more so because, through the judgment in question, the attempt of this Court was only to grant some relief to the borrowers that too on the basis of the concessions made very fairly by the respondentFinancial Institution. If the writ petitioners do not want it, then there is no point of keeping the directions alive and I, therefore, deem it appropriate to vacate the judgment and hear W.P(C)No.7874 of 2019 again.

¶27

Consequently this review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 19^th March, 2019, in W.P(C)No.7874 of 2019 is vacated.

¶28

extracted order, since the 3^rd petitioner says that she has been virtually tricked into

¶29

filing this writ petition by her son- the 1^st

¶30

writ petitioner, I am certain that this petition becomes completely untenable and unworthy of any orders; particularly when the

¶31

WP(C).No.7874 of 2019 4

¶32

1^st petitioner is unable to inform this Court affirmatively that he had filed this writ petition on behalf of his mother with her full volition.

¶33

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving open all contentions of all the parties to be pursued appropriately in future.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

MC/20.7.19

¶38

WP(C).No.7874 of 2019 5

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.1415/2018 FILED BEFORE ETHE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.ADV.SHAHABANU MUTHU.T.T.

¶42

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Ebbes Mathew v. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ebbes Mathew v. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Calicut City Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Ajith.P.

The Area Manager Vs George Joseph

K.T.Johny, Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sidharthan.v Vs the Alathur Primary Co. Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. P-620

M/S. Projects & Equipments Corporation Ltd. Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam

Anilkumar.a, Vs Kannur Co-Op House Construction Society Ltd.