IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1172 of 2009 (A) ---------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16042/2009 Dated 10/06/2009 ) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------- J.RAJENDRAPRASAD, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. JANARDHANAN, MADARI HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD., KOTTAPPADI, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL CORP. LTD., KOTTAPPADI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ............................................................................... R.P. NO. 1172 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 16042 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 11th December, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition seeking for immediate intervention, when coercive proceedings were, stated as initiated against his assets. 2. The case of the Writ petitioner was that there occurred some defaults in effecting repayment of the loan under some unforeseen circumstances and his mother-in-law had stepped in to save the situation, whereby some arrangements had been made to effect sale of some properties to raise the funds . A copy of the sale agreement, stated as executed in this regard was also produced and marked as Ext.P6. It was the definite case of the petitioner that the entire liability would be cleared on or before 01.10.2009 and it was in the said circumstances, that the Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 10.06.2009, recording the above submission, giving opportunity to have the entire amount cleared on or before 01.10.2009, simultaneously directing the Bank to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till such time. R.P. NO. 1172 OF 2009 2 3. The review petitioner has now approached this Court stating that the signatory to Ext. P6 agreement (prospective purchaser) chose to turn his back. It is pointed out that some arrangements have been made with some other person to effect the sale and in the said circumstances, some more time is stated as required to clear the liability. 4. However, it is to be noted that there is absolutely no ground in the Review Petition to invoke the power vested with this Court to review the judgment, since there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the records. The law in this regard stands well settled, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [ AIR (1995) SC 455]. The Review Petition is devoid of any merits or bonafides. No interference is called for. Dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk