IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 167 of 2010(E) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37846/2007 Dated 23/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC. ------------------------------------ C.A UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.APPUGUPTAN,CHEMBANPADATH HOUSE, VAKADAPURAM PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS MANAGER SULTANPET, PALAKKAD. 2. SHRI T.S.VIJAYAN, S/O.T.S.NAMBOODIRI R/O 85, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. 3. SMT.SANDHYA ASHOKAN, CHANDRANAGAR PALAKKAD. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI. R1 BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPINATH MENON R2 & R3 BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH R4 & R5 BY T.P.M. IBRAHIMKHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.167/2010 in W.P.(C).37846/2007-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. Order 1.This review petition is filed on the premise that the finding in the judgment sought to be reviewed that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to file the writ petition and challenge the impugned sale proceedings, is unsustainable. It has been specifically held in the impugned judgment that the right to complain about the sale is definitely only with the person whose property has been sold. This is how the particular statutory provision has been construed by this Court while considering whether the right of the writ petitioner or his interest has been affected by the impugned sale proceedings. There is no error apparent on the face of the record of the impugned judgment and the question raised has not been left without being considered. RP167/10 -: 2 :- 2.I may also notice that the issue raised with regard to Section 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act was answered in WP(C). 1867/2008 arising from the same proceedings at the instance of the father-in-law of the petitioner herein, who is the guarantor to the transaction. I do not find any ground to exercise the review jurisdiction on the aforesaid facts. This review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1903