IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 142 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.478/2008 Dated 12/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 5, 6 & 7 IN W.A.NO.478/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLA, T.C. 19/173, VATTAVILA, TIRUMALA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANTHALATHA, T.C. 15/298, SAPHALYA, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O.K.SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT T.C. 19/173, VATTAVILA, TIRUMALA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.A.478/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.THOMAS, ELUVUNGAL HOUSE, VAYYATTU, NALLANAD, VENJARAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. P.P. POULOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. PALLANATTIL CONSTRUCTION, (ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS), REVIEW BUILDINGS, KURISADI JUNCTION, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2-R4-BY SR. ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009 ALONG WITH RP NO. 174 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.142 OF 2009 & R.P.NO.174 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J: These two review petitions are directed against the common judgment in W.A.Nos.478/2008 and 611/2008. Petitioners were respondents 5 to 7 in W.A.No.478/2008 whereas in W.A.No.611/2008 they were respondents 4 to 6. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that while rendering the judgment in the case, this Court had not considered the specific contention raised by them as regards their claim arising from Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel points out that the decision rendered by the apex court in Janatha Textiles & Others v. Tax Recovery Officer & another (JT 2008 (6) SC 653) was cited in this connection. The other decisions referred to in the above judgment were also brought to the notice of the court at the time of argument. But, there is not even a reference to the decision in Janatha Textiles (Supra) in the judgment. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they being the bonofide purchasers of the property put in auction by the Kerala Financial Corporation, their rights ought to have been recognized in view of the dictum laid down by the 2 R.P.NOS.142 & 174/09 apex court in Janatha Textiles (Supra). 3. A perusal of the judgment which is sought to be reviewed will show that in paragraphs 19 and 20 the contention raised by the petitioners based on Sections 41 and 53 of the Transfer of Property Act was specifically referred to and dealt with. It is true that specific reference was not made to Janatha Textiles (Supra). This was obviously for the reason that the right that the petitioners as bonafide purchasers, claimed had admittedly flown from the illegal sale held by the Corporation (as found by the court) purportedly invoking the powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. However, the decision reported in M/s. Rose Potteries v. W.B. Financial Corporation (AIR 1986 CALCUTTA 277) was referred to and considered in this context. 4. We have carefully perused the grounds raised by the petitioners in these review petitions. We have also gone through the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. In our view, the contention now raised by the petitioners cannot be entertained in exercise of the power of review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After carefully perusing the judgment in Janatha Textiles (Supra), we may only state that the primary issue that arose for consideration before the Division Bench was one concerning the validity and legality of the sale conducted by the Corporation in exercise of the 3 R.P.NOS.142 & 174/09 power under Section 29 of the Act. The procedure adopted by the Corporation was found to be illegal and the sale was held void in view of the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narasimhaiah & Others (AIR 2008 SC 1797). 5. As stated by us earlier, since the right of the petitioners had admittedly flown from the illegal sale, it was not open to them to contend for the position that their rights were liable to be protected even if the sale was found to be void. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to review the judgment. These review petitions are therefore dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE). cl 4 R.P.NOS.142 & 174/09