IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 151 of 2011(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26369/2010 Dated 19/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S):NON - PARTY -------------------------------------------- AARATHY K., D/O. S. KRISHNANKUTTY, SILVERNOOK, NEDUVAKKAD, KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. H.HASSAN,S/O. HARRIS, 8/1267, ARMUGHAN GARDEN, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD - 7. 2. THE CORPORATION BANK, 11/1447,MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD - 14., REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK, PALAKKAD BRANCH, 11/1447, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD-14. 4. ARUNA, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT S.S.COMPLEX COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD-1. 5. BEERAN,S/O.MOIDU, 20/202, EDAYAR STREET, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD - 1. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.C.S.SUNIL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.151 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The revision petitioner is not party in the writ petition. It is noticed that the writ petition was disposed of on 19.11.2010 on the terms that the third respondent, who was arrayed as the auction purchaser, had failed to contest the matter. It was noted that, notice send from this Court to the third respondent was returned unserved with postal endorsement as “no such addressee”. The respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition have submitted that, the third respondent had failed in remitting balance amounts due out of the bid amount. Therefore, while disposing the writ petition this Court had permitted the respondent Bank to appropriate the amounts already remitted by the third respondent. 2. In the review petition it is contended that, the name and address under which the auction purchaser was arrayed in the writ petition, was not correct, and that there was no 2 R.P.No.151 of 2011 notice to the Review Petitioner about pendency of the matter before this Court. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the review petition can be allowed since the petitioner herein was not impleaded under proper name and address. 4. Hence review petition is allowed and judgment dated 19.11.2010 is hereby recalled. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/