IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 394 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3101/2011 Dated 06/04/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SREENIVASAN K, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KARTHIYANI, KOTTAPPADAM, OPP.SASTHA BUILDING, CHANDANA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (PO), PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC HOUSE, NO-29 KAMARAJ ROAD (NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE) COIMBATORE-641 018. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT, HDFC HOUSE, NO-29, KAMARAJ ROAD (NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE) COIMBATORE-641 018. BY ADV.SRI.A.S.SAJEESH PAUL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 394 of 2011() APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER : ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.615736 DATED 23.2.2011 ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.615860 DATED 14.3.2011 ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.572610 DATED 15.9.2010 ANNEXURE-D : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C). 3101/11 DATED 6.4.2011 EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.394 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3101 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011. O R D E R I do not find any tenable ground to entertain the review petition. Nor the petitioner is in a position to point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment or any material facts omitted notice of this Court when the writ petition was disposed of. 2. However, as a juster of indulgence, the review petition was entertained and an order was issued on 5.9.2011 directing the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.65,000/- within 10 days thereof. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, even the said order has not been complied with in full and there exists a total outstanding arrears (default) of Rs.42,000/- as on today. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire arrears within a 2 R.P.No.394 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3101 of 2011 short period and to direct the respondent Bank to permit reoccupation in the residential house, on the basis of an undertaking that, the petitioner will remit the future instalments without any default. The proposal is stiffly opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, contending that the loan account could not be regularised at this stage. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, even though I am convinced that there exists no ground for reviewing the judgment, as a last chance, an opportunity is given to the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.42,000/- on or before 30.9.2011. 4. If the said amount is remitted on or before the date stipulated, then the petitioner shall be permitted to occupy the residential building situated in the property, for the purpose of the residence, which was already taken over possession by the respondent Bank, subject to legal possession being retained by the Bank. 3 R.P.No.394 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3101 of 2011 5. If the above direction is complied with, then the respondent Bank shall permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. Needless to say that, the petitioner will be liable to be evicted from possession of the residential house, if any one of the monthly instalments is defaulted, without resorting to any further legal proceedings, if necessary with assistance of the police authorities having jurisdiction over the local area. The review petition is disposed of accordingly. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/