IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 189 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37808/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ SHRI.CHANDRAN K.P,AGED 51 YRS, S/O.PARIKADAN,KELATH HOUSE,ENKAKAD P.O.,AGAMALA VADAKKANCHERY,THRISSUR-680589 BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. HDFC BANK, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED POST BAG NO.1667,RAVIPURAM JUNCTION,KOCHI REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER 2. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,MUMBAI LIFE BUILDING,45 VEER NARIMAN ROAD, FORT MUMBAI-400023, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER / AUTHORIZED OFFICER R1 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL SRI.BOBBY THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- R.P. No. 189 OF 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 37808/2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May 2011. O R D E R The Review Petition has filed with the following prayers: Page 7 (a) To review its judgment under review dated 23.12.2010 by directing the respondent bank to issue a loan account statement to the petitioner and permit him to remit the arrears without prejudice to this right to challenges, if any, with regard to the loan account statement. (b) To allow him to remit the 2nd installment on or before 10.3.2011 and the remaining in 2 monthly installments thereafter and also to direct the respondent to intimate the future installments and amount payable after regularization of the account. (c) To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstance of the case. By virtue of the Judgment indulgence was R.P. No.189 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 37808/2010 2 shown in directing the respondents to permit occupation of the building by the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner had undertaken that he has relinquished of all challenges and that he is not intended to pursue any of the remedies under the statute. Under such circumstance, there is no reason to review the Judgment permitting the petitioner's prayers challenging against proceedings in .... This is especially because of the fact as pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Judgment in question was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 226/2011 and the petitioner had failed in such attempt. The second prayer in the review petition is for extension of the payment of the 2nd R.P. No.189 of 2011 in W.P. (C ) No. 37808/2010 3 installment on or before 10.3.2011 and the remaining 2 monthly installments thereafter. Since the date of extension have already been expired, the payer has become evidently infructuous. Under the above find circumstance, I find no reason to entertain the review petition. The Review Petition is accordingly, dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE al