IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 332 of 2008(A) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.3578/2008 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. N.A.SALEEM, S/O. MOOSSA ABDUL REHMAN,PROP. IRIS COLOUR PALACE M.G.ROAD, TRICHUR, RESIDING AT KOLADI HOUSE NALKATH VADAKKAYIL, VADANAPPALLY TRICHUR. 2. R.V.MOHAMMED AYOOB,S/O.IZZAKUTTY HAJI RAYAMARAKKAR VEETTIL, PAVARTTY P.O.,TRICHUR. 3. IZZATH AYOOB,W/O.R.V.MOHAMMED AYOOB RAYAMARAKKAR VEETTIL, PAVARTTY P.O.,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LASKSHDWEEP), 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.332 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008. O R D E R 1.I am not satisfied that any ground exists to review the judgment. The trickery tactics adopted by the petitioners in relation to the recovery of debt from them do not even deserve to be commended upon since the judgment sought to be reviewed and the judgment of the Division Bench allowing the petitioners, leave to withdraw the appeal after arguing the writ appeal for quite some time, are eloquent enough. In W.A.496/2008, the Division Bench has clearly granted liberty to the appellants (petitioners herein) to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs by making appropriate application. The judgment sought to be reviewed, in no way, stands for such a course being adopted in accordance with law. RP332/2008 -: 2 :- However, I am not inclined to take away the effect of the judgment sought to be reviewed by allowing the request of the petitioners made through their counsel to allow the writ petition to be withdrawn. Such a procedure, if permitted, will run as a precedent. Not only that, going by the terms of last paragraph of the judgment sought to be reviewed, it has itself worked out with the passage of time and nothing survives in this review petition. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. With deference to the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners, an order of costs is not being imposed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/