THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 87 of 2008() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36783/2007 Dated 19/12/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- A.G.JOSEPH, ARACKAL HOUSE, PONJIKARA, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, BANERJI ROAD BRANCH, KOCHI - 682 018. 2. M/S.DELTA TRADING CORPORATION, 24/1382 LEGAS BUILDING, G.V.IYER ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 3, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MURALI MENON. 3. MURALI MENON, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, GOPURAPILLIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O. VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.U.ABRAHAM, PALACKATHADATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, 5TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B. OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36. RP87/2008 - 2 - 6. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.GOPINATHA MENON. R5 & R6 BYSRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.87/2008 in WP(C).No.36783/2007-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This application for review of judgment has been filed on the ground of discovery of new materials in support of the case. What has been ultimately argued is that the final order passed by the Tribunal is wholly illegal, unjust and contrary to the materials on record. But the fact remains that the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal refusing to set aside the final order which was passed ex parte the writ petitioner. For reasons which I have stated in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed, I held that there is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order of the Tribunal which was impugned in the writ petition. It was accordingly that the writ petition was dismissed. But, having heard the learned counsel for the RP87/2008 -: 2 :- review petitioner on the different aspects of the matter, I deem that this is an appropriate case where the petitioner, in his wisdom, should have chosen to go to the DRAT rather than move the writ petition challenging the order refusing to set aside the ex parte final order. This is because, the power of jurisdiction of the DRAT under the Act also includes a wider fact finding power rather than confine to the jurisdictional limits and legal issues in a writ petition. Having been satisfied that the review petitioner could prosecute an appeal before the DRACT, if so advised, as an exceptional situation, the judgment sought to be reviewed is vacated and it is clarified that if the petitioner moves the DRAT, any such proceedings shall be decided untrammelled by anything contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The review petition is disposed of accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/