IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1076 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WA.105/2009 Dated 27/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER IN RP 1173/2009/4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- IN W.A. M/S.P.T.MATHAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT.LTD., KV 29, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ROJER MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN RP 1173/09/APPELLANT IN W.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SMT.SOPHIE VINAY, DOOR.NO.EL/CC 56/874, SION NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, KOCHI - 62 015, NOW RESIDING AT PEARL HOUSE - 101, KUMARANASAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020. 2. M/S.CANARA BANK, OVERSEAS BRANCH, KARUNA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, OVERSEAS BRANCH, KARUNA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. SRI.SAVIO, S/O.JIMMY ANTONY, CHOOLACKAL HOUSE, FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI - 20. R1 BY SRI.CHACKO GEORGE, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADV. SRI.H.RAMANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1076 OF 2010 IN R.P.No.1173 OF 2009 IN W.A.No.105 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.W.P(C).29621/06 was decided on 16.10.2008. The petitioner therein filed W.A.105/09. That was ordered at the stage of admission on 14.1.2009. The 4th respondent in that writ appeal filed R.P.No.1173/09. By order dated 27.9.2010, that review petition was allowed recalling the judgment dated 14.1.2009 on the ground that it is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. In terms of the last paragraph of that order, W.A.105/09 was again listed for admission. The Bench headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice admitted that writ appeal on 14.10.2010 and granted an interim order directing that status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained. After that, on 28.10.2010, this review petition is filed by the RP.1076/10 2 4th respondent in the writ appeal, who had filed the earlier review petition. 2.The plea advanced is that the judgment dated 14.1.2009 in W.A.105/09 contains, among other things, a finding expressed by the Bench that a question under the SARFAESI Act cannot be looked into on merits by this Court in a writ petition and that the said finding is rendered by a Bench of co-equal strength and therefore, could not have been vacated as per the review order. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Others [(2008) 10 SC 1] and the different judgments referred to therein. 3.The gist of the aforesaid precedents stands to advise the courts regarding judicial discipline and the requirement to refer to a larger forum, in the event of any disagreement with an earlier decision on a particular point of law. That has no application for review of that very judgment. This is because, if a judgment sought to be reviewed were to bind the quorum RP.1076/10 3 sitting in review, no review petition could be considered in co- equal jurisdiction. If the contentions advanced in that regard by the review petitioner are accepted, every review petition, if it were to be allowed, has to be adjourned to a larger quorum. The review petitioner's contention in this regard is totally misconceived. 4.The effect of the order on R.P.No.1173/10 is that the judgment dated 14.1.2009 in W.A.No.105/09 stands vacated in toto and does not survive for any purpose. With the passage of time, that writ appeal stands admitted by a Bench of co-equal strength. We would not be acting in tune with judicial discipline if we were to entertain this review petition. 5. This review petition fails and is dismissed preserving the contentions of the parties in the writ appeal. 6.We also leave open the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the writ appellant, the writ petitioner, that RP.1076/10 4 an application for review of an order passed on a review petition is not maintainable. A decision on that issue is not necessary for us to dispose of the matter in hand, having regard to the view taken otherwise. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.1/12.