IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 337 of 2002(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.7440/2002 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM, (REVIEW PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER (LEGAL),KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,KALLOOR,ERNAKULAM, WHO IS DULY AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO DO SO). BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- 1. STEVEN FERNANDEZ, S.S.COTTAGE, T.C.33/699, KOCHUVELI, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 337 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is a petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 7440/2002, seeking review of the judgment dated 26-3-2002 in that original petition. The judgment reads thus: “No instructions is forthcoming, counsel submits, from the first respondent in spite of posting the case for instructions. The petitioner's vehicle, which the petitioner purchased on availing loan from the first respondent, has been seized by the first respondent, due to default in repayment. The petitioner submits that he had been hospitalised and could not conduct the business. That was the reason why the default occurred. The petitioner shows preparedness to remit the amount. He submits that the period of loan has not yet expired. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of as follows:- If the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.75000, the respondents shall release the vehicle to the petitioner on further condition that the petitioner shall remit the balance amount towards the defaulted instalments until May 2002 by 25.5.2002. He shall also remit the regular instalments from the month of July onwards. If any of these two conditions is not complied with by the petitioner, necessarily the vehicle can be repossessed.” The ground for review is that even before filing of the original petition on 18-3-2002, the vehicle in question had already been sold, which fact could not be brought to notice of this Court, because before the standing counsel could get instructions in the matter, on 26-3-2002 the original petition was disposed of. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the original petition also. 3. From the proceedings , I find that the original petition came up for admission on 19-3-2002 and on the next posting date, the same was disposed of on 26-3-2002. The KFC would contend that in view of the fact that the officers of the KFC were busy with the work of finalization of accounts for the year end, they could not give instructions to the standing counsel. Therefore, they seek recalling R.P. No. 337/2002 -: 2 :- the impugned judgment and rehearing the original petition on merits. This is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition. But, I find that in view of the fact that the original petition was filed on 18-3-2002 and judgment was passed on 26-3-2002, sufficient time was not granted to the respondents to place their contentions before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment dated 26-3-2002 is recalled and the original petition is restored to file. Post the original petition for hearing. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.