IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34468 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHALID.N.P, S/O.VEERAN KOYA HAJI, 'ENPEES' CHERUVANNOOR, FEROKE.P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-16. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-16. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., CHERUVANNOOR BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R1 SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R3 SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY FOR R3 SRI.A.ANTONY SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.1192/09 IN W.P.(C). NO.34468 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This review petition relates to a transaction between a banker and customer. The judgment sought to be reviewed was issued considering different aspects which were canvased at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The two grounds, that were urged at the hearing of the writ petition related to the correctness of the accounts and the requirement of the petitioner to sell one of the items of the mortgaged properties. Directions were issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to intervening circumstances, his client could not enjoy the benefit of the judgment. The petitioner contends that one of her relatives has come forward to settle the transaction and the judgment sought to be reviewed may stand in the way of such settlement. This apprehension expressed by the petitioner is quite misplaced. The respondent being a banking institution is entitled to take such commercial decision as it may, in the interest of the institution. The learned counsel for the bank states that after R.P.NO.1192/09 IN W.P.(C). NO.34468 OF 2009 2 the judgment sought to be reviewed, the petitioner's husband filed a writ petition and he has compelled to withdraw it on the face of objections in that regard. The learned counsel for the bank therefore says that there is no bonafides in prosecuting the review petition. All that needs to be stated is that the judgment sought to be reviewed will not stand in the way of the bank taking any decision it may, in accordance with law. The judgment will not stand in the way of that. There is no merit in this review petition. It is accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns