Nazeer.K vs Badagara Co-Operative Urban Bank ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6637 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
 WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                       RP NO. 462 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 38311/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

         NAZEER.K
         AGED 44 YEARS
         S/O.MOOSA, NELLIYLLA MALAYIL, KALARIYULLATHIL
         HOUSE, CHANIYAM KADAVU.P.O., THIRUVALLUR,
         VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673541
         BY ADV P.K.PRIYA


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

         BADAGARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. D.2263
         NUT STREET.P.O., BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE.PIN - 673104
         REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.,
         BY ADV DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.



     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2023,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P No.462 of 2023 in W.P.(C)No.38311 of 2022
                                       2



                                ORDER

Dated this the 14th day of June, 2023

The review petition has been filed seeking a review of the

judgment dated 02.12.2022 in W.P.(C)No.38311/2022 through

which the petitioner was permitted to clear the then overdue

amount in the respondent-Bank in 12 monthly instalments. It

was also directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) towards overdue amount

of Rs.12,56,272/- (Rupees twelve lakh fifty six thousand two

hundred seventy two only) on or before 15.12.2022. It was

further also directed that on payment of the aforesaid sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 15.12.2022, the possession of the

secured asset shall be returned to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

Bank would submit that, after paying the aforesaid amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and obtaining possession of the secured asset, the

petitioner failed to comply with the other directions contained

in the judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, the petitioner seeks further indulgence of this

Court and further time may be granted to the petitioner to

clear the liabilities.

R.P No.462 of 2023 in W.P.(C)No.38311 of 2022

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. I

am of the view that no grounds have been made out for review

of the judgment in W.P.(C)No. 38311/2022. The ground set out

in the memorandum of review petition do not constitute

grounds which would justify the consideration of an application

for review. Review jurisdiction is limited.

Therefore, the review petition fails and it is

accordingly dismissed. However, considering the submission of

the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is

permitted two weeks time from 14.06.2023 to pay of all

defaulted amounts.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE TR R.P No.462 of 2023 in W.P.(C)No.38311 of 2022

APPENDIX OF RP 462/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2022.