IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 278 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36022/2008 Dated 30/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- P.V. THAMPY, S/O.P.C. VARGHESE, AGED 54, PROPRIETOR, M/S.P.V.S RICE MILLS, KULAKAPARA, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOZHINJAMPARA BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP) ERNAKULAM. 3. P.V. JUNJAPPAN, S/O.P.C. VARGHESE, PULLICHKODU HOUSE, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. 4. P.V. CHUMMAR, S/O.P.C. VARGHESE, PULLICHKODU HOUSE, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. 5. V.G. DIVAKARAN, S/O. LATE P.K.G KURUP, 48/31, SARANAM, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN - 682 016. 6. J. JULIUS SMITH, S/O. LATE T.L. JOSEPH, 11/281-C, DESIYA KAVALA, VAZHAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA.P.O, COCHIN - 682 021 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... R.P.NO. 278 OF 2009 in WP(C) 36022 of 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 ORDER Heard. The writ petition was filed in relation to a banking transaction. The sale was set aside at the instance of the petitioner, in view of certain deposits made. He was to pay further amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in a time bound manner and further amounts that bank may fix. The bank was permitted to continue to hold charge over the properties over which security interest was noted. The petitioner wants that condition to be vacated evidently to enable him to go for private sale. This is clearly impermissible. Not only that even if the petitioner has a party for private sale, it is for him to work out that remedy with the junction of the bank and pay the amounts to the bank and clear the documents for finalising the deal. I do not find any ground to review the judgment on the ground of any error apparent on the face of record or on any other ground for repayment. The review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move RP 278/2009 2 for enlargement of time, if necessary. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/25/3