Anil Kumar K vs The Federal Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 8895 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                RP.No.230 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 7692/2019

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7692/2019(J) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER:

               ANIL KUMAR K.
               AGED 43 YEARS
               S/O.KUTTAPPAN PANIKAR, HARIMANDIRAM HOUSE,
               VALIYAKULANGARA P.O., KULATHIKARAZHMA,
               MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 104.

               BY ADVS.
               SHRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON
               SMT.LOVELY SAMSON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE FEDERAL BANK
               HEAD OFFICE AT ALUVA, BRANCH AT MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT OF LCRD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, FEDERAL TOWERS, TVM-I.

      2        VENUGOPALA PILLAI A.R.
               S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, REVATHI, NIRANAM NORTH P.O.,
               THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 621.

      3        SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE
               MANNAR, ALLAPUZHA - 689 622.

      4        KEERTHY ARAVIND
               D/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SAVITHRI NIVAS,
               KARIMULACKAL, KOMALLOOR P.O., CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE,
               MAVELIKARA - 690 505.




               SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL-SR.GP

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION             ON
17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.230 OF 2021 IN WP(C).7692/2019

                                            2

                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking

review of the judgment of this Court, dated

21.03.2019 in W.P(C)No.7692 of 2019,

asserting that the petitioner is the owner of

the property in question, which has been sold

by the Federal Bank in favour of

Shri.Venugopala Pillai, who was the 2nd

petitioner in the said writ petition.

2. The petitioner says that the Bank

and the auction purchaser had approached this

Court, to obtain an order for registration of

the Sale Deed in the name of the latter even

without him being made a party therein and

therefore, that the directions in the

judgment be vacated.

3. When I hear Shri.Abraham Samson,

learned counsel for the petitioner, it is

clear that what was sought for by the Federal

Bank was only registration of a Sale Deed

which was executed between them and the

auction purchaser, consequent to the sale. RP.No.230 OF 2021 IN WP(C).7692/2019

4. Obviously, therefore, unless the

petitioner is able to have the sale set

aside, the directions in the judgment would

be of no prejudice to him, since this Court

only permitted registration of the deed

consequent to the sale executed between the

parties. In other words, if the petitioner is

able to have the sales set aside through a

process of law, then obviously, the

directions in the judgment would not stand in

the way of the sale deed also being cancelled

in terms of law.

In the afore circumstances, I see no

reason why this review petition has been

filed by the petitioner; and therefore,

dismiss it, however, with the afore

clarification.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/17.3.2021 RP.No.230 OF 2021 IN WP(C).7692/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED NIL FILED BEFORE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANNAR.

ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED 22/7/2020 FILED BEFORE RDO, CHENGANNUR.