IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 646 of 2011(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12424/2011 Dated 02/08/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ K.THULASI, CHITTOOR HOUSE, TNRA-105, THIRUMULLAVARAM.P.O., KOLLAM-12. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER-691001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UCO BANK, KOLLAM-691001. SRI.GEORGE K.VARGHESE, SC FOR BANK THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.646/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DDT 21.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE DRT ERNAKULAM IN IA NO.1276/08 IN OA 138/2008. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 8.8.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 22.3.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RSPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 9.6.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 9.8.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 12.8.11 ISSUED BY M/S.INDIA SME ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO.LTD., MUMBAI TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.646 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 12424 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in WP(C) No.12424/11. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 2/8/11 recording the submission of the parties that statement of account sought for was already granted and allowing the petitioner to close the liability in instalments. It is now pointed out that subsequently respondents have asked the petitioner to settle the liability with the securitisation company to which the account has been transferred, and according to the petitioner, the liability as demanded is far above the actual amount due. Therefore, petitioner submits that unless the judgment is reviewed and the petitioner is permitted to seek his remedies against the quantification now made, irreparable injury will be caused. 3. Evidently the judgment shows that at the time when the writ petition was heard, the petitioner did not bring to the notice of this Court that the account has been transferred to the RP No.646/11 in WP(C) No.12424/11 :2 : Securitisation Company and that he had any grievance regarding the liability as quantified by them. 4. On facts, therefore, what is seen is that if the instalment facility allowed by the judgment is to be complied with, the petitioner will have to discharge the aforesaid liability, which according to the petitioner has been quantified without any basis. In that view, I am inclined to think that ends of justice require that the prayer sought should be granted. Accordingly, review petition will stand allowed and the judgment will stand recalled. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp