IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1134 of 2009(T) ---------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21799/2009 Dated 03/08/2009 ) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MADARI BHARGAVI AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.VADAKKEPPATTU PRABHAKARA MENON, MADARI HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.DALBI EMMANUEL PALAMOOTTIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NILAMBUR. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER), NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NILAMBUR. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 and R2 BY DEVAPRASANTH P.J., SC. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. MR. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ R.P. No. 1134 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 21799 of 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 11th December, 2009 O R D E R The Writ Petition was filed challenging the coercive proceedings taken by the Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and it was disposed of as per the judgment dated 03.08.2009 recording the submission made from the part of the petitioner that the default occurred was only because of some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner would clear the entire liability on or before 01.10.2009. It was accordingly that the matter was finalised, of course making it clear that if any default was made by the petitioner, the Bank would be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it was intercepted as on the date of the verdict. 2. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present Review petition stating that the concerned person with whom she had entered into an agreement for sale of some properties, so as to generate funds, turned his back and in the circumstances, the property could not be sold in time and the R.P. No. 1134 OF 2009 2 liability could not be cleared. It is in the circumstances, the review of the judgment is sought for, to permit the petitioner to clear the liability by way of ten equal monthly installments. 3. The learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the Bank would favourably consider the request of the petitioner to the possible extent, if the petitioner approaches the Bank in this regard. However, it is to be noted that there is absolutely no ground in the Review Petition to invoke the power vested with this Court to review the judgment, since there is no error apparent on the face of the records. The law in this regard stands well settled, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [AIR (1995) SC 455]. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to review the judgment and the Review Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the parties to sort out the reliefs, if so desired and agreed.. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk