Kerala High Court
Pradeep.E.S vs The Manager on 15 December, 2023
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Friday, the 15th day of December 2023 / 24th Agrahayana, 1945
IA.NO.1/2023 IN WP(C) NO. 30931 OF 2022
APPLICANT/PETITIONER:
PRADEEP.E.S., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN, ELOOR HOUSE,
THONNURKKARA P.O., THONNURKARA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680586
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, THONNURKKARA BRANCH, THONNURKKARA P.O,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680586
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to grant an extension
of 6 months' time to deposit the amount an to produce the receipt in WP(C)
30931/2022, in the interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.C.A.ANOOP & R.KRISHNA, Advocates for the petitioner and of
SHRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN, Advocate for the respondent, the court passed the
following:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I.A.No.1 of 2023
in
W.P.(C) 30931 of 2022
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2023
ORDER
On 25.03.2022, this Court had disposed of W.P.(C) No.10384 of
2022 granting the benefit of repayment of the overdue amount in '10'
instalments and to regularise the instalments. Thereafter a review
petition was filed as R.P.No.322 of 2023 wherein, by judgment dated
05.04.2023, this Court had, after finding that there is no error apparent
on the face of the record, in order to protect the residential property of
the petitioner adopted a liberal approach and extended the time by a
further four months. It is now submitted that the said direction was also
not complied with.
2. Prior to the review petition, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.30931 of
2022 and on noticing that a review petition has already been filed, this
writ petition was closed on 23.03.2023 without prejudice to the
contention in the review petition.
3. As mentioned earlier, in the review petition, this Court had,
while extending the time already granted to the petitioner had observed
that no further time will be granted. This application for extension of time
is thereafter filed in this writ petition which was closed earlier.
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.(C) 30931 of 2022
4. As noticed earlier, the order in the review petition had
specifically observed that, under no circumstances shall any further
extension of time be granted. However, petitioner has thereafter filed
this application in the writ petition seeking extension of time that too, not
even in the review petition.
5. Considering the entire circumstances and after hearing the
arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that since this Court had
already observed in the review petition that no extension of time will be
granted, this petition cannot even be considered without reviewing that
earlier order. Since the petitioner has already obtained an order in the
review petition, a second review is also not maintainable.
6. Therefore, the extension of time cannot be granted either in the
manner in which the petition has been filed or by reviewing the judgment
in R.P.No.322 of 2023.
Hence, this application is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
