IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1071 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN AS.313/2002 OF THIS COURT .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------- P.A.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, VELANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, NEAR SARASWATHI VILASAM L.P.SCHOOL P.O. CHETTUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. P.A.JACOB (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CANARA BANK, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P. No.1071 of 2009 and C.M.Appln.No.1811 of 2009 in A.S.No.313 of 2002 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st December, 2009 O R D E R Ramachandra Menon, J. Petitioner in C.M.Appln.No.1811 of 2009 seeks to condone the delay of 2779 days in filing the review petition, which has been filed seeking to review the judgment passed by this Court on 27.11.2002, in A.S.No.313 of 2002. 2. The case has got a very long history. The petitioner, party-in-person, had availed a loan from the respondent-Bank, which, however, was not repaid in time, leading to O.S.No.95 of 1985, preferred by the Bank, seeking for realisation of the due amount. The petitioner herein had entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings, an endorsement was made by the counsel, on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, RP.No.1071 of 2009 in A.S.No. Of 2002 2 stating that all the contentions raised in the written statement would stand withdrawn. Based on the said endorsement, the suit was decreed, as prayed for, by the Court below. Later, contending that the endorsement was made as a result of 'fraud' played by the Manager of the Bank, the petitioner approached the Court below, particularly, the Execution Court, to set aside the Execution Proceedings, after a period of about 10 years. The decree was passed on 19.1.1989, whereas the above petition itself was filed only on 19.3.1999, and the said petition was dismissed by order, dated 2.8.1999, declining interference. 3. During pendency of the Execution Proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Execution Court. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, eventhough some concessions were extended by the Bank, it was not accepted by the party. Finally, the revision petition filed before this Court was dismissed and the execution was proceeded further. Things took a different turn thereafter and by this time, the petitioner had also filed RP.No.1071 of 2009 in A.S.No. Of 2002 3 O.S.No.906 of 2000, for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.95 of 1985, on the ground of fraud; simultaneously incorporating a prayer to stay the execution proceedings in O.S.No.95 of 1985, which already stood rejected by this Court. There was a further Civil Revision Petition filed before this Court as C.R.P.No. 581 of 2001, which was also dismissed by this Court, as per the verdict dated 6.6.2002. 4. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below in O.S.No.95 of 1985 was subjected to challenge by filing A.S.No.313 of 2002. After discussing the sequence of events, this Court held that the main contention as to the denial of opportunity to the petitioner, projecting the judgment and decree as an “ex parte decree”, was not correct or sustainable, and further that the course pursued by the Court below in decreeing the suit for realisation of the loan amount was perfectly within the four walls of the law. It was also observed by this Court that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner was to challenge the judgment and decree in O.S.No.95 of 1985 by RP.No.1071 of 2009 in A.S.No. Of 2002 4 filing separate proceedings, if the decree was obtained by playing any fraud. Since the party had already approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.906 of 2000, as specifically noted in paragraph 8 of the judgment, the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed, as per judgment, dated 27.11.2002, however, making it clear that it will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner/appellant to pursue his remedy, as claimed for in O.S.No.906 of 2000, pending before the concerned Civil Court. 5. About seven years after passing the final verdict as above, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by filing this Review Petition, along with C.M.Appln.No.1811/2009, seeking to condone the delay of 2779 days in filing the same. True, the said petition is accompanied with an affidavit dated, 15.10.2009, wherein the petitioner has referred to some of the proceedings filed by him, to show the sequence of events. However, absolutely no reason has been offered, much less any satisfactory explanation, as to the inordinate delay, so as to have RP.No.1071 of 2009 in A.S.No. Of 2002 5 it condoned. As mentioned hereinbefore, the review petition itself is seeking to re-consider the verdict passed by this Court on 27.11.2002 in A.S.No.313 of 2002. Obviously, interference was declined in the said case, referring to the fact that O.S.No.906 of 2000 preferred by the very same petitioner before the Court below, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree was still pending and hence with liberty to pursue the said matter. There is absolutely 'no error apparent on the face of records' so as to invoke the power of review, which in any view of the matter can't be a substitute for an appeal, if aggrieved, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455). This being the position, there is absolutely no merit in the review petition as well. 6. As noted already, the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay does not disclose any reason at all to consider and condone the delay of more than seven years RP.No.1071 of 2009 in A.S.No. Of 2002 6 in filing the review petition. The idea and understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. In the above facts and circumstances, we find no merit, both in the petition to condone the delay, as well as in the review petition. Accordingly, the petition filed to condone the delay of 2779 days in filing the review petition is dismissed. As a natural consequence, the review petition is also dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.