IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 573 of 2008(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35293/2007 Dated 21/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------- VINODKUMAR,S/O. CHERULIL CHOWAREDATH VIJAYAN, PULLUT DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5: ------------- 1. PRASANTH, AGED 30 S/O. PARATHATTIL SAGEENDRANATH KONATHUKUNNY DESOM, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THRISSUR. 3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER CUM ARBITRATOR THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. 5. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.573 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).No.35293 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the first respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner, first respondent in this review petition, is represented through Adv.Sri.Sreekumar (Chelur). 2. Sri.Prasanth filed the writ petition on the allegation that Sri.Vinod kumar, the first respondent therein, had executed an agreement for sale of an item of property to him, however, that the said property was brought to sale by the second respondent District Co-operative Bank on alleged arrears of Vinod kumar's father. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 21.1.2008, it was stated that the said debtor has paid off all the outstandings to the Bank and had applied for cancellation of that sale. Obviously therefore, the writ petitioner Prasanth could have only aspired for resolution of disputes, if any, relating to the enforcement of the agreement for sale. Hence, the writ RP.573/08 Page numbers petition was closed without prejudice to Sri.Prasanth's right, if any, to prosecute the suit for specific performance. That by itself is not intended to be any direction to the civil court trying the suit, either to proceed with the suit or to render a particular decision. 3. It appears that in the mean while, the civil suit was closed as settled out of court. The writ petitioner Prasanth, thereafter, filed Annexure A4 review petition before the civil court stating that the suit has been closed as settled out of court, without him instructing his then advocate in that regard. In that review petition, Sri.Prasanth impeaches the action of his then advocate and he does not stand by the so called settlement. 4. The review petition in hand is filed by Sri.Vinod kumar seeking review of the judgment passed in the writ petition on the ground that the statement therein that “all that the petitioner can now aspire for is to prosecute the suit for specific performance” is likely to be misused as a direction by this Court RP.573/08 Page numbers to continue the proceedings in the civil court. I am clear in my mind that there is no such direction in the judgment sought to be reviewed and that the said statement only means that the parties have to stand regulated by any decision of the civil court. Therefore, if the suit had ended before the judgment in the writ petition, any re-opening, review, restoration etc. would depend entirely on the facts, grounds, reasons etc, as may be available in the civil suit and the judgment dated 21.1.2008 in W.P(C). 35293/07 is not intended to bind the parties on any issue in the civil case. Hence, no review is called for. The review petition ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.9/6.