RP NO. 520 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
RP NO. 520 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENTWP(C) 7135/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
RAGHAVAN P.K.
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O KUTTAPPAN, POLUVEETTIL HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE- 680551
BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
M/S CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
THRISSUR BRANCH, MACHINGAL LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN
CODE- 680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
OTHER PRESENT:
SC,SRI.K.M ANEESH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 520 OF 2022
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
========================
Review Petition No.520 of 2022
in
W.P.(C)No.7135 of 2022
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2022
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for review of the judgment dated 04.03.2022 in W.P.(C)No.7135/2022 specifically relating to the number of instalments already granted. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, unless the number of instalments are increased to 20 instead of 18, petitioner would find it practically impossible to repay the amount.
2. Sri. K.M.Aneesh, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand objected to the review petition. Learned counsel pointed out that though the petitioner has cleared three out of the four instalments, granted as per the judgment, he has been irregular in the payments with a total default in payment of the first instalment. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to the respondent, they are willing to accept repayment provided, petitioner clears the entire defaulted instalments. It was also pointed out that, petitioner was liable to clear four instalments as on date, however, he has paid only three instalments.
RP NO. 520 OF 2022 3
3. In stricto sensu, though petitioner is not entitled for any leniency, taking into consideration the circumstances in which the petitioner was granted instalments to repay the defaulted amount, I am of the view that increasing the number of instalments payable from 18 to 20 as stipulated in the judgment will not cause any prejudice to the respondent.
4. Therefore, the judgment dated 04.03.2022 will stand reviewed to the extent of directing repayment of the outstanding amount in 18 equated monthly instalments as condition No.(i). Instead of 18 instalments ordered, petitioner is given the benefit of repayment in 20 equated monthly instalments. All other terms of the judgment shall continue to remain as it is.
The review petition is allowed to the limited extent.
sd/ BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ RP NO. 520 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF RP 520/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE OVERDUE AMOUNT DATED 03.06.2022 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE OVERDUE AMOUNT DATED 06.06.2022 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SAID MEDICAL RECORDS DATED 09.02.2022 Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 08.06.2022