IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 638 of 2008(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15250/2008 .................... REVIW PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- SYNDICATE BANK A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONING UNDER BANKING COMPANIES(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1970 REGD.OFF.AT MANIPAL&BRANCHES OTHER PLACES AT THALIPARAMBA,REP.IN THIS PROCEEDINGS BY ITS SR.MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK,THALIPARAMBA BR.KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, THALIPARAMBA VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. P.J.THOMAS, PLAKKATTU HOUSE, ERUVATTY, CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. LISSY THOMAS, W/O.P.J.THOMAS, PLAKKATTU HOUSE, ERUVATTY, CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P.No.638 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 15250 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 23rd of May 2008. While rendering judgment, this court did not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the inadequacy of the price that was fetched in respect of a property that was mortgaged by respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition. Learned counsel seeks review of the judgment mainly relying on Annexure A2 valuation report. In my view, even this does not call for a review of the judgment as sought for and if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a revision or appeal as provided under the Revenue Recovery Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon submits that despite requests that were made, the 4th respondent has not so far issued a sale certificate or other records of sale in order to enable them to pursue that statutory remedy. 2. If as stated by the review petitioner, they have not been issued any sale certificate or other documents which are required to RP 638/08 :2 : pursue their statutory remedies, I direct that on the production of copy of this order, the 4th respondent shall furnish the petitioner copy of the sale certificate. 3. It is also clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies, and in case any such remedy is availed of, the same will be considered untramelled by the observations in the judgment. It is also directed that if the petitioner files an appeal/revision as above, within 4 weeks from today, the same will be considered and disposed of on merits. With the above clarification, the review petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp