IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 679 of 2011(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6832/2011 Dated 22/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- P. BHARATHAN, S/O. KELU, PANANGAVIL HOUSE, THANA.P.O, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 670 001. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, APPOINTED UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, FOR CITY UNION BANK KLTD., KANNUR - 670 003 3. CITY UNION BANK LTD., CENTRAL OFFICER, 149, T.S.R BIG STREET, KUMBAKONAM, TAMIL NADU - 612 001. SHRI P. SHRI HARI RAO, SC FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 679 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE BANK. ANNEXURE-A2-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/08/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL \\True copy// P.A to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- RP.No.679 of 2011 in WP(C).No.6832/2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 ORDER The review petition is filed on the premise that subsequent to the judgment a statement of account was furnished by the respondent bank demanding unreal and incorrect amounts, which the petitioner is not liable to pay. It is pertinent to note that while issuing direction for payment of the amount in default this court has not specified the amount. The petitioner is banking upon an observation contained in the judgment regarding a submission made on behalf of the respondent that, the amount remaining overdue for payment will be around Rs.10 lakhs. However, on the premise that the demand now made is unreal and exorbitant the petitioner is not entitled to seek a review of the judgment. The petitioner is not in a position to point out any error apparent on the face of record or any fact omitted notice while passing the judgment. Hence I am of the considered opinion that the review petition is unsustainable. RP.679/2011 in WP(C).6832/2011 2 2. Under the above mentioned circumstances review petition is dismissed. However, liberty of the petitioner to challenge correctness of the demand in appropriate proceedings is hereby reserved, if available under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ RP.679/2011 in WP(C).6832/2011 3