IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 237 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2021 IN WP(C) 19966/2021 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS :
1 SMT. HASSENA,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. SHINAZ, SWASTHAM, VAYALIL HOUSE,
MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 602.
2 SRI. SHINAZ,
S/O. ABDULLAKOYA HAJI,
SWASTHAM, VAYALIL HOUSE,
MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 602.
BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT :
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE CALICUT CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
NUMBER 1538, KALLAI ROAD,
KOZHIKODE - 673 002.
BY SRI.DEVAPRASANTH P.J., SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 237 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 19966/2021
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
R.P.No.237 of 2022
in
W.P.(C) No.19966 of 2021
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022
ORDER
This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 07.10.2021.
2. The main reason behind the review petition is to avail an opportunity to pursue the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal notwithstanding the grant of instalment facility by this Court. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the writ petition was necessitated since at that point of time, the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not functioning and petitioners had no other alternative other than to approach this Court and though pursuant to the judgment some of the instalments were paid, the petitioners are unable to continue the payment of instalments. According to them, they have contentions of merit against the recovery proceedings but due to the judgment under review, they are precluded from challenging it.
3. Sri.Devaprasanth P.J., the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the review petition is not bonafide since the borrowers have been attempting under one form or other to delay the RP NO. 237 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 19966/2021 3 enforcement of the security interest after paying the instalment of Rs.5,00,00/- as directed in the judgment on 31.11.2021 and a further amount of Rs.3,60,000/- on 01.02.2022. Petitioners had completely defaulted in paying the amounts thereafter. It was also submitted that they attempted to delay the proceedings through another writ petition filed at the behest of an alleged tenant, which is still pending.
4. Taking into consideration the reliefs granted in the writ petition which was based on a concession and the request of the petitioners, I am of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment. However, since the petitioner is attempting to pursue the statutory remedies, it is clarified that notwithstanding the judgment dated 07.10.2021, the petitioners will be at liberty to pursue the statutory remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. If any such application is filed, necessarily, the Tribunal will be free to consider the same on merits.
With the above observation, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM