IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 386 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23467/2007 Dated 20/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.KALANDER, S/O.THOOPEER, MANAGING PARTNER, NOBLE INDUSTRIES, KALLUVALAPPU P.O., PUTHUR,KOLAVALLOOR AMSOM DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR P.O., KANNUR. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY), COLLECTORATE, KANNUR P.O., KANNUR. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KANNUR P.O., KANNUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN R2 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 386 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge on a review petition arising from the judgment in WP(C) No.23467 of 2007. 2. The main contention raised by the appellant in the review petition was that because of an error in calculation of the amount due from respondent No.1, the appellant had sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.1,03,084/-. The learned Single Judge after considering the above contention and the other relevant materials on record, found that there was no merit in the plea that the judgment was liable to be reviewed and modified in order to enable the appellant to recover the alleged outstanding due. 3. Admittedly, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated at the instance of the appellant to recover a sum of Rs.9,97,000/- from respondent No.1, as is revealed from Ext.P1. The requisition for recovery was issued by the WA No.386 of 2008 -:2:- appellant under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act in Form No.24. It can be seen from Ext.P1 that the above sum of Rs.9,97,000/- comprised of principal and interest at the rate of 17%. It is yet again beyond controversy that respondent No.1 had remitted the entire dues pursuant to the Revenue Recovery proceedings. 4. However, when respondent No.1 requested for return of the title deeds produced by him at the time of availing of the loan, the appellant took the view that some more amount was due. This contention raised by the appellant was repelled by this Court in the judgment dated 20.08.07 in the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1. 5. Thereafter, appellant filed the review petition contending, inter alia, that because of the mistake committed in calculating the amount due from respondent No.1, the appellant had sustained some loss. It was contended that interest was levied at the rate of 17% only instead of 17.5%. In addition to that respondent No.1 was also liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 2% as well. 6. In Ext.P7 issued by the appellant it was indicated that respondent No.1 had remitted the entire dues with interest at the WA No.386 of 2008 -:3:- rate of 17%. Though contractual rate of interest was 17.5% to be compounded half yearly, the liability was quantified calculating simple interest only at the rate of 17%. Any how, the learned Single Judge took the view that this contention cannot be looked into or entertained in a petition for review. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, this contention was raised at a belated stage and that too only after the entire dues were remitted by respondent No.1. 7. Having carefully perused the materials available on record and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall return the documents of title to respondent No.1 forthwith. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb WA No.386 of 2008 -:4:-