Prasanth Palliyana vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 22259 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
    FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                           RP NO. 763 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN WP(C) 25878/2020 OF HIGH
                       COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM


REVIEW PETITIONER :

            PRASANTH PALLIYANA,
            AGED 46 YEARS,
            S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, PALLIYANA HOUSE,
            VATANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR - 680 614

            BY ADV K.I.SAGEER



RESPONDENTS :

    1       DHANALAXMI BANK LTD.,
            REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, THRISSUR REGION,
            MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR - 680 020

    2       MANOJ PALLIANA,
            A1 NABOODAH SPECIALIST, SERVICES LLC,
            P.O.BOX NO.11193, DUBAI

            BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC


     THIS   REVIEW    PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 763 OF 2021 IN W.P.(C) No.25878 of 2020
                               2

                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  -----------------------------------------
                    Review Petition No. 763 of 2021
                                      in
                        W.P.(C) No.25878 of 2021
                   ----------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 5th day of November, 2021

                                  ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of this Court to grant liberty

while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn.

2. A perusal of the order under review shows that though

petitioner had sought for permission to withdraw the writ petition with

liberty, this Court had not granted such liberty, while dismissing the writ

petition as withdrawn.

3. On a consideration of the arguments raised at the Bar, I am

of the view that the refusal to grant liberty by this Court was purposeful

and there is no error apparent on the face of record. The sequence of

events that transpired in the case, as brought to the notice of this Court by

the learned counsel for respondents compelled this Court not to give liberty

to move again on the same cause of action. Even otherwise petitioner will

not be put to any prejudice because the petitioner would be entitled to

move if fresh cause of action arises.

The review petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM