IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 524 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1112/2009 Dated 03/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------- T.SUJATHA,KAVITHALAYAM,232,KALLAYAM, KALLAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.P.R.PRATEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 006. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006. 4. SALE OFFICER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,DISTRICT OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006. 5. K.C.CHANDRAKUMAR,CHANDRODAYAM, TC 5/2147,KOKKODE,KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 006. 6. BEENA,W/O.SURESHKUMAR, SEKHANA, KARAKULAM P.O, PARAVOORKONAM MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 564. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN FOR R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.524 of 2011 in W.A. No.1112 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petition is filed raising the contention that sale of surety's property pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act is unauthorised. However, we notice that the sale took place in 2004 and the same was challenged by filing writ petition in this court in the year 2008. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the matter on account of delay alone. It is this judgment which was upheld by us in the Writ Appeal. 2. Even though counsel for the review petitioner contended that the question raised in the writ petition was not decided either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench, what we find is that the Single Judge declined to entertain the W.P.(C) for the simple reason that sale of property was challenged more than 4 years after sale and execution of sale deed in favour of the purchaser. We, therefore, do R.P.524/11 2 not find any mistake in the judgment warranting interference in review proceedings. Consequently Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge True copy P.S. to Judge pms