IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 1080 of 2007(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15125/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- C. THOMAS, ELUVUNGAL HOUSE, VAYYATTU, NALLANAD, VENJARAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.P.P. POULOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.PALLANNATTIL CONSTRUCTION CO (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS), REVIEW BUILDINGS, KURISADI JN., NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SRI.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, T.C.19/170, VATTAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SMT.SANTA LATA, T.C.15/298, SAIFULYA, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SMT.VIJAYA KUMARI AMMA, D/O.GOURIKUTTY AMMA, T.C.19/123, VATTAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN, SC, KFC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 1181 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.1080 of 2007 in W.P.(C) No.15125 of 2007 & R.P. No.1181 of 2007 in W.P.(C) No.19045 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. ORDER These review petitions are filed by petitioners in the W.P.(C)s. who are guarantors for the loan availed by 4th respondent in W.P. 15125/2007. The borrower availed loans from KFC against security furnished by review petitioners in the form of mortgage of their property. It is seen from Ext.P1 produced in W.P. 19045/2007 that item No.4 which is the property of the review petitioners was sold along with properties of others. After sale held through tender on 25.5.2006, an opportunity was given to the review petitioners to retrieve the property by depositing the price offered by the highest bidder. However, review petitioners did not avail the facility. Consequently the purchasers deposited full sale consideration and sale deed was executed and possession given on 6.12.2006. Even though the borrower filed petition before the Lok Adalath and this Court and obtained conditional stay orders, he did not comply with interim orders of stay and therefore, sale of the property of the review petitioners took place. The W.Ps. were filed by the review petitioners with substantial delay of 4 to 5 2 months after date of execution of sale deed. The W.Ps. were disposed of holding that sale cannot be interfered with without adequately compensating the purchasers which is not possible in as much as they had sold their properties for sourcing the funds for purchase of properties of the review petitioners. The case of the review petitioners is that the properties stated to be sold by the purchasers were in fact not sold and they have made false statement in this court. Counsel appearing for the purchasers submitted that Ext.R5 series of documents produced contain details of sale of other properties and bank details pertaining to payments made towards sale consideration. It is seen from Ext.R5A(a) produced in both cases that the purchasers had sold other properties contemporaneously to source funds for remittance towards sales consideration. Even though review petitioner in R.P.1181/2007 has produced encumbrance certificate to show that purchasers have not sold the property as stated by them, I do not think the same will justify interference with the judgment in review because the purchasers had already sold other items of properties. Moreover, there is no justification for this court to deny the benefit of escalation in land cost to the purchasers for the investment made. Review petitioners were obviously not serious about retaining their property which is evident from their conduct in not remitting the sale consideration offered by purchasers 3 when such an option was given by KFC and by not contesting the matter for long and thereafter filing belated writ petitions in this court. So far as the petitioner in R.P. 1080/2007 is concerned, I do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment in review based on his contention that he has not executed any mortgage of his property. There is no explanation as to how title deed of the properties of the said review petitioner had gone to the hands of the Government Corporation pursuant to security bond executed by him. Therefore, I find no bonafides in the contention that he has not executed any mortgage in respect of his property. The review petitions are therefore devoid of any merit and are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms