IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 731 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4084/2010 Dated 15/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS : PETITIONERS : --------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMON.V.M, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. SILVESTER MICHAEL, VELIYIL HOUSE, KATOOR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. 2. MARIAM.P.A, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. SILVESTER MICHAEL, VELIYIL HOUSE, KATOOR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN MR. M.D.SASIKUMARAN MR. GEORGE MATHEW MR. DIPU JAMES RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI -36. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHIRAPPILLY BEACH, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PIN 688 521 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. SATHISH NINAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 731 of 2011 in W.P (C) No . 4084 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th October, 2011 ORDER The review petitioners are petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4084 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amount due under a loan transaction, after declaring the account as 'NPA'. When the matter came up for consideration on 15.02.2010, taking note of the submission made by the petitioners that the default was only due to some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner was ready to satisfy the liability, the writ petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioners to clear the same by way of reasonable installments as specified therein. It is seen from the materials on record that the petitioners did not comply with the said directions. Subsequently, the petitioners again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 23020 of 2011, wherein interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, holding that, if the petitioners were aggrieved in any manner with regard to the earlier verdict, it was for them to have sought review of the judgment. It is with reference to the R.P. No. 731 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 4084 of 2010 : 2 : said observation, the petitioners have again approached this Court by filing the present review petition. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits, on instructions, that the review petitioners, in spite of the directions given by this Court facilitating repayment of loan amount by way of installments, did not choose to remit any amount, which compelled the Bank to proceed with further steps approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court causing a petition to be filed under Section 14 of the Act, whereby a Commissioner was appointed for taking over the possession. It is also pointed out that, the review petitioners chose to approach the District Consumer Forrum and obtained an interim order of stay. In the said circumstances, the respondent Bank approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 34756 of 2010. In spite of taking notice by special messenger, the review petitioners, who weree the respondents therein, did not turn up and the said writ petition was allowed intercepting the proceedings of the consumer forrum. It was thereafter the review petitioners chose to file W.P(C) 23020 of 2011 culminating in Annexure A3 verdict, dismissing the same. 3. Going by the grounds raised in the review petition, the grievance of the review petitioner is with regard to the alleged non R.P. No. 731 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 4084 of 2010 : 3 : compliance of the requisite formalities and procedure in tune with the relevant provision of the SARFAESI Act. There is absolutely no ground as to any error apparent on the face of the record as to why the verdict passed by this Court is to be reviewed. It has been made clear by the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (AIR 1995 SC 455) that review petition is not a substitute for appeal. There is no merit in the review petition. It is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge