IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 1165 of 2007(H) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21496/2007 Dated 20/09/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER : 3RD PARTY ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.ASHOKAN, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KANHIRAVILAYIL HOUSE, POST KOODARANHI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.RAJEEV S/O.K.S.PILLAI MARAKKAM PARAMBIL HOUSE KOTTOOLI, P.O.KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., (MAIN BRANCH), GANGA TOWERS, M.M.ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. BIJU.M., S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR.T., KALLANGIRALIL HOSE, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.RESHMI DAMODARAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN FOR R2 ADV. SRI.K.S.DILEEP FOR R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.21496 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1165 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The review petition is filed for the reason that the statement in the judgment of W.P.(C) No.21496/2007, that the second respondent paid Rs.2 lakhs to the review petitioner is incorrect. During hearing, counsel for the second respondent submitted that even though second respondent has spent Rs.2 lakhs, the submission that the amount was paid to the review petitioner is incorrect. However, counsel for the second respondent submitted that substantial amounts were spent for making arrangement of eviction of the review petitioner. Under interim orders, the second respondent was paid Rs.3 lakhs out of which Rs.2 lakhs represents sale proceeds and balance one lakh represents expenditure incurred, the details of which are furnished by the third respondent. The second respondent is compensating for the purchase price paid by him and for the expenditure incurred by him. I will resolve the interest on the R.P.NO.1165/2007 2 purchase price and the expenditure and it will be sufficient towards compensation. 2. The review petition is accordingly disposed of deleting third sentence thereto, that the second respondent's statement pertains to the payment made to the review petitioner. However, setting aside the judgment on condition that the first respondent herein shall make payment of a further sum of Rs.25,000/- to the second respondent herein within a period of one month from today. Consequently, the amount under the judgment is reduced from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.3.25 lakhs in view of the payment of Rs.3 lakhs already made. The balance will be paid as directed above. Review petition is allowed as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE csl