Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Baiju K.T
2022 Latest Caselaw 4342 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                  &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                        RP NO.400 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2019 IN WA 1228/2015 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/2ND RESPONDENT:

            HDFC BANK LTD,
            KOZHIKODE BRANCH, KOZHIKODE P.O., PIN-673001,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL           SHYAM
            PRASANTH H.


            BY ADV SRI.T.RAJESH

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS RESPONDENT 1 AND 3:

    1       BAIJU K.T.,
            AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMBILI VILLA, NEAR HIGH
            SCHOOL, MUZHAPPILANGAD P.O.,         KANNUR-670662.


    2       THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
            OFFICE OF THE RTO, CIVIL STATION,          KANNUR-
            670002.


    3       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
            DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.


            BY ADV.SRI.R.SURENDRAN
            BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN


        THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     :2:
R.P.No..400 OF 2022
in
W.A.No.1228 of 2015




                                ORDER

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The Review Petition has been preferred seeking a review of the

judgment dated 30.05.2019 in W.A.No.1228 of 2015.

On a perusal of the averments in the Review Petition, we find that

what is urged in the Review Petition is essentially points that were

already urged at the time of hearing the Writ Appeal. That apart, the

review petitioner has now chosen to produce a document which,

although apparently available at the time of arguing the Writ Appeal

was not produced then. We are also informed by the learned counsel

for the respondents that the directions in the judgment impugned in the

Review Petition have since been complied in toto. Under the said

circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the Review Petition. The

Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE mns

R.P.No..400 OF 2022 in W.A.No.1228 of 2015

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE R1(A): THE TRUE COPY OF THE CAR LOAN AGREEMENT