G.Titus Manoharan vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 20690 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                         RP NO. 888 OF 2019
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21396/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

            G.TITUS MANOHARAN
            S/O. GEORGE NADAR, CHRISTU VILASOM. MANTHARA,
            MAMPAZHAKARA, PERUMPAZHATHUR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADV SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

    1       THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
            THE NEYYATTINKARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.931,
            HEAD OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
            695121.

    2       JAYAKUMAR,
            MAHANAMA, SNRA-49 A, SANKARAN NAIR ROAD, PERIKAVU,
            PERIKAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695573.

            BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN     SC




     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 888 OF 2019
                                     2



                             O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking that the directions in the

judgment, dated 14.08.2019, be reviewed, so as to extend the

period granted therein for payment of the amounts by the

petitioner.

2. I cannot, however, find favour with the submissions

made by Sri.Ajith Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner,

because when one examines the trail of the proceedings leading to

this review petition, it becomes clear that this Court kept on

granting time to the review petitioner to pay off the amounts, but

he was unable to do so.

3. This petition was filed on 05.09.2019 and several

chances were given to the petitioner to pay off the amount.

Finally, on 13.09.2019, the learned counsel for the review

petitioner submitted that his client is still trying to raise the funds

and thus the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2019; on which day,

the petitioner said that he has paid off the entire amount to the

bank. However, the 2nd respondent took the stand that he had RP NO. 888 OF 2019

taken an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as loan from a private

financier, for the purpose of raising the bid amount and therefore,

that he will require at least Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, since

he had to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interest.

4. I, therefore, directed the petitioner to tender

Rs.1,00,000/- on before 05.11.2019. However, on 05.11.2019, the

petitioner did not tender the money and after several postings, the

matter was finally considered on 20.11.2019 and I fixed

29.11.2019 to be the last day for the review petitioner to pay the

extra compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent, making

it clear, in the order indited on that day, that, otherwise, the sale

will stand confirmed.

5. Unfortunately, on 29.11.2019, the petitioner could not

raise the funds and the matter was, thereafter, considered on

04.12.2019, again on which day, the petitioner sought further

time. On 13.12.2019, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner recused himself and I, therefore, adjourned this matter

to 18.12.2019, when the petitioner said that he is willing to pay RP NO. 888 OF 2019

another Rs.15,000/- as compensation and sought for more time to

pay the resultant sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the 2nd respondent.

6. Today, when this matter was called, Sri.D.Ajithkumar

- learned counsel for the review petitioner, submitted that his

client has now raised the fund, but Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent, refused to accept the same, saying

that his client has already started construction of a building on the

property and that he has no other land in his name. He asserted

that the sale was confirmed on 08.07.2019 and that the property

was put in possession of his client soon thereafter, as per the

provisions of law.

7. In reply, Sri.D.Ajithkumar - learned counsel for the

review petitioner, submitted that the sale cannot be construed to

have been confirmed, because the sale certificate has not been

issued to the 2nd respondent or registered until now. However,

Sri.P.C.Sasidharan controverted this and affirmed that sale

certificate has been issued to his client. As regards the period of

limitation is concerned, if it applies, the petitioner will be at RP NO. 888 OF 2019

liberty to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal saying that the writ

petition was pending before this Court from 05.09.2019 which

shall also be taken into account by the said Tribunal Appropriately.

In the afore circumstances, it is luculent that this Court will

not be in a position to help the review petitioner any further and

if he wants any relief as per law, he will have to approach the

competent Forum.

In the afore circumstances, I dismiss this petition,

confirming the judgment sought to be reviewed; however,

leaving full liberty to the petitioner to invoke all the remedies, as

may be available to him in law, for which purpose, all his

contentions are left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE SAS/05/10/2021 RP NO. 888 OF 2019

APPENDIX OF RP 888/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS NIL

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE R2A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.10.2019

ANNEXURE R2B TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF E.M.D. FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE AUCTION

ANNEXURE R2C TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO.851/14