Raghavan P.K vs M/S Central Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 8833 Ker

RP NO. 520 OF 2022
                                    1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
        THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                            RP NO. 520 OF 2022
     AGAINST THE JUDGMENTWP(C) 7135/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

           RAGHAVAN P.K.
           AGED 70 YEARS
           S/O KUTTAPPAN, POLUVEETTIL HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY POST,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE- 680551
           BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHAN


RESPONDENT/S:

           M/S CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
           THRISSUR BRANCH, MACHINGAL LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN
           CODE- 680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
OTHER PRESENT:

           SC,SRI.K.M ANEESH


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 520 OF 2022
                                         2

                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
               ========================
                  Review Petition No.520 of 2022
                                     in
                       W.P.(C)No.7135 of 2022
               ------------------------------------------------
                        Dated this the 7th day of July, 2022

                                    ORDER

The petitioner seeks for review of the judgment dated

04.03.2022 in W.P.(C)No.7135/2022 specifically relating to the

number of instalments already granted. According to the

learned counsel for the review petitioner, unless the number of

instalments are increased to 20 instead of 18, petitioner would

find it practically impossible to repay the amount.

2. Sri. K.M.Aneesh, the learned counsel for the

respondent, on the other hand objected to the review petition.

Learned counsel pointed out that though the petitioner has

cleared three out of the four instalments, granted as per the

judgment, he has been irregular in the payments with a total

default in payment of the first instalment. In the aforesaid

circumstances, according to the respondent, they are willing to

accept repayment provided, petitioner clears the entire

defaulted instalments. It was also pointed out that, petitioner

was liable to clear four instalments as on date, however, he has

paid only three instalments.

RP NO. 520 OF 2022

3. In stricto sensu, though petitioner is not entitled for

any leniency, taking into consideration the circumstances in

which the petitioner was granted instalments to repay the

defaulted amount, I am of the view that increasing the number

of instalments payable from 18 to 20 as stipulated in the

judgment will not cause any prejudice to the respondent.

4. Therefore, the judgment dated 04.03.2022 will stand

reviewed to the extent of directing repayment of the

outstanding amount in 18 equated monthly instalments as

condition No.(i). Instead of 18 instalments ordered, petitioner

is given the benefit of repayment in 20 equated monthly

instalments. All other terms of the judgment shall continue to

remain as it is.

The review petition is allowed to the limited extent.

sd/

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ RP NO. 520 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF RP 520/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE OVERDUE AMOUNT DATED 03.06.2022 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE OVERDUE AMOUNT DATED 06.06.2022 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SAID MEDICAL RECORDS DATED 09.02.2022 Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 08.06.2022