IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 93 of 2011(W) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28186/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- K.C.GEORGE, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 76 YEARS, ATHITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KALLIYATTI, EZHAKKARANAD SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST.682308. BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWRS, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., PUTHENCRUZ BRANCH, PUTHENCRUZ,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682308. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 5. THE RECERVE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 6. THE TAHASILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANEED, PIN-686726, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. AYYAPPAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682308. 9. SAVITHRI, W/O.AYYAPPAN, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682308. R2 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.A.ANTONY R9 BY ADV.SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.93/2011 in W.P.(C) NO.28186/2010-W --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The review petitioner filed the writ petition stating that he is entitled to the benefit of the Kerala Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, treating himself as small farmer. It was also contended that SARFAESI proceedings initiated against him was illegal for the reason that the proceedings initiated were against an agricultural loan. 2. In this review petition what is now contended is that he has filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and that the findings in the judgment that the petitioner was not entitled to be treated as a small farmer should not stand in the way of the petitioner in contending that he is entitled to the benefit of the said Scheme. 3. A reading of paragraph 3 of the judgment shows that, this contention was dealt with and this court came to the conclusion that in terms of the scheme the petitioner was not entitled to be teated as small farmer, based on the classification made by the Bank that the petitioner as “other farmer”. RP.No.93 /2011 :2 : 4. In my view, if for any reason the petitioner is aggrieved by the finding, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file against the finding. I do not find any merit in the review petition. Review Petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/