IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 404 of 2003(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.32759/2000 Dated 17/02/2003 .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ----------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRISSUR. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KALPATTA BRANCH, WYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS AND R3 AND 4 IN O.P. --------------------------------------------- 1. P.M. SALIM, S/O. MUTHU, PULICHARAM VEEDU, POTTIKKARA DESOM, CHIRANALLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK. 2. FATHIMA, W/O. MUTHU, PULICHARAM VEEDU, POTTIKKARA DESOM, CHIRANELLOR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK. 3. SAJITH, S/O. MUTHU, PULICHARAM VEEDU, POTTIKKARA DESOM, CHIRANELLOR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK. 4. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRISSUR. 5. M.H. ILLEAS, S/O. MOHAMMED, KUMMASSERIYIL HOUSE, KEECHERY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.NARAYANA PILLAI SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- R.P.No.404 OF 2003 IN O.P.No.32759 OF 2000 ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Original petition was disposed of recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.F.E. that the amounts alleged to be due from the petitioners have already been paid and the revenue recovery proceedings shall be closed as per the statement filed. Since the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that as per the statement filed, no further amounts are due, the question of proceeding to recover any further amount does not arise and the original petition was closed with a direction that no further proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioners. In the review petition it is stated that the statement made by the Standing Counsel is not correct and actually amounts are due from petitioners 2 and 3. Be that it may, no counter affidavit is filed in the original petition even as on today controverting the averments made in the original petition and showing as to what is the amount due along with the statement of account. Therefore, even if the review petition is allowed, no useful purpose will be served. If the original petition is heard today, the -2- R.P.No.404/03 position is that the averments made in the original petition stands uncontroverted. Except the solitary statements made in the review petition that amounts are due from the petitioners 2 and 3 in the original petition, no detailed affidavits are filed. However, the respondents being a public authority and if actually the amounts are due and payable, then it is only appropriate that the matter be heard on merits. But the conduct on the part of the respondents in filing a statement through the Standing Counsel and thereafter filing a review petition without even filing a detailed affidavit as to how amounts are due and payable by petitioners 2 and 3 is not justifiable. Hence this Court thinks that the review petition be allowed only on terms. Accordingly, I allow this review petition on payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein. This may be done within two weeks. If the amount is not paid within the said period, the review petition will stand dismissed. Within the period of two weeks counter affidavit, if any, in the original petition shall also be filed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv. -3- R.P.No.404/03 P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- R.P.No.404 OF 2003 IN O.P.No.32759 OF 2003 ---------------------------- O R D E R 17th March, 2008