Smt. Hassena vs The Authorized Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 6373 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
        FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                           RP NO. 237 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2021 IN WP(C) 19966/2021 OF
                         HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS :

    1       SMT. HASSENA,
            AGED 39 YEARS
            W/O. SHINAZ, SWASTHAM, VAYALIL HOUSE,
            MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 602.

    2       SRI. SHINAZ,
            S/O. ABDULLAKOYA HAJI,
            SWASTHAM, VAYALIL HOUSE,
            MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 602.

            BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER



RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT :

            THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
            THE CALICUT CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
            NUMBER 1538, KALLAI ROAD,
            KOZHIKODE - 673 002.

            BY SRI.DEVAPRASANTH P.J., SC


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 237 OF 2022      IN WP(C) 19966/2021
                                   2


                      BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                          R.P.No.237 of 2022
                                   in
                      W.P.(C) No.19966 of 2021
                   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022


                                 ORDER

This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment

dated 07.10.2021.

2. The main reason behind the review petition is to avail an

opportunity to pursue the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal

notwithstanding the grant of instalment facility by this Court. The learned

counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the writ petition was

necessitated since at that point of time, the Debts Recovery Tribunal was

not functioning and petitioners had no other alternative other than to

approach this Court and though pursuant to the judgment some of the

instalments were paid, the petitioners are unable to continue the payment

of instalments. According to them, they have contentions of merit

against the recovery proceedings but due to the judgment under review,

they are precluded from challenging it.

3. Sri.Devaprasanth P.J., the learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that the review petition is not bonafide since the

borrowers have been attempting under one form or other to delay the RP NO. 237 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 19966/2021

enforcement of the security interest after paying the instalment of

Rs.5,00,00/- as directed in the judgment on 31.11.2021 and a further

amount of Rs.3,60,000/- on 01.02.2022. Petitioners had completely

defaulted in paying the amounts thereafter. It was also submitted that

they attempted to delay the proceedings through another writ petition

filed at the behest of an alleged tenant, which is still pending.

4. Taking into consideration the reliefs granted in the writ

petition which was based on a concession and the request of the

petitioners, I am of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of

the record warranting review of the judgment. However, since the

petitioner is attempting to pursue the statutory remedies, it is clarified

that notwithstanding the judgment dated 07.10.2021, the petitioners will

be at liberty to pursue the statutory remedies before the Debts Recovery

Tribunal in accordance with law. If any such application is filed,

necessarily, the Tribunal will be free to consider the same on merits.

With the above observation, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM