IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 144 of 2010() IN C.R.P.NO.607 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.607/2009 Dated 22/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------- KODANTHU MUBASEER,AGED 38, S/O.UMMER,ULLLANAM AMSOM, DESOM,P.O.ULLANAM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI C0-OP.SERVICE BANK LTD NO.F.2382, PARAPPANANGADI. 2. NAMBANKUNNATH HAMZA, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, HAJI,ULLANAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ULLANAM. 3. KODANATHU AYOOB, S/O.MUHAMMED, ULLANAM, AMSOM, DESOM,P.O.ULLANAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010 ALONG WITH R.P.NO.146 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.144 OF 2010 IN C.R.P.NO.607 OF 2009 & R.P.NO.146 OF 2010 IN C.R.P.NO.608 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioners in both the review petitions and also the respondents. It is noticed that the time fixed for payment of the portion of the decree amount, which was insisted upon as a precondition for granting stay had not expired on the date when the case came up for consideration before this Court. Without noticing it holding that the amount was not deposited within time, the revisions were disposed of. I am satisfied that there is an error apparent in the order passed in the revisions. Review petitions are allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp