IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 739 of 2011(C) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33429/2010 Dated 02/08/2011 .............................................................................. REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------- THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THODUPUZHA-685603 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ROBY JOSEPH, TMC 111/301,VEMPILLY HOUSE VENGALLOOR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685584 2. JESSY ROBY,W/O.ROBY JOSEPH, TMC 111/301,VEMPILLY HOUSE VENGALLOOR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685584 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685603 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) THODUPUZHA-685584 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUMARAMANGALAM-685597 R1 & R2 BY SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR. R3 TO R6 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STU RP.No. 739 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: 1. COPY OF THE COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT DTD 15/12/2010 ENTERED INTO AT THE ADALATH. 2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 08/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE BANK. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE. STU S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 739 of 2011 in W.P(C) No. 33429 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th day of October, 2011. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the respondent-bank in the writ petition seeking to review my judgment dated 2.8.2011 in the writ petition, which reads as follows: “This writ petition is filed challenging proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners to the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter was settled in the Lok Adalath and therefore no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.” Counsel for the bank submits that although the matter was settled in the Lok Adalath, the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the order of the Lok Adalath and therefore there is no settlement. They apprehend that the judgment as it is may be held against the bank in future proceedings. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this review petition clarifying that I have only recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioners and the same will not in any way bind the bank in any further proceedings against the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.