IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 216 of 2009(R) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.788/2009 DATED 9/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------- K. CHEKKU HAJI, S/O ALAVI HAJI, KALATHINGAL HOUSE, PO PERINTHATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. C. ABOOBACKER, S/O SUBAIR, CHULLY HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBA, PO.. PERINTHATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, VELLILA, MALAPPURAM DIST. R1 BY ADV. MR. SAJU J.VALLYARA R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR. T.R.RAVI, SC, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.216/2009 in W.P.(C).788/2009-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009. O R D E R 1.The third respondent in WP(C).788/2009 has filed this review petition. That writ petition was filed by the principal debtor under a transaction where the review petitioner was the guarantor. When the writ petition came up for admission, the writ petitioner confined the submissions to a request for payment in instalments. Therefore, I granted an order for instalments without passing any order against the interest of the third respondent in the writ petition, who is the review petitioner. Yet, I included a clause in the judgment that the third respondent guarantor will be entitled to move for review of that judgment, if he is aggrieved by that judgment. This was because, the guarantor could also say that the recovery cannot be delayed letting RP216/2009 -: 2 :- interest to further keep on accruing. There is no other ground on which the guarantor could have been aggrieved by that judgment issued on 9.1.2009 in the writ petition. 2.This review petition is filed on the premise that the principal debtor, the petitioner in the writ petition did not comply with the instalment facility granted as per that judgment and hence, the guarantor wants a review of that judgment essentially directing further proceedings against the properties of the writ petitioner, principal debtor. This is beyond what could be apprehended as an outcome that could be generated by the litigation either in the writ petition or in this review petition. I do not find any ground to issue any order in favour of the guarantor, the review petitioner. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed, more particularly because the guarantor is entitled to satisfy the debt and RP216/2009 -: 3 :- seek contribution to the principal debtor. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/120309