IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 671 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26635/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- ANNAMMA VARGHESE,W/O.VARGHESE PHILIP AGED 47 YEARS,VEMBALIL HOUSE,ATHIKKAYAM P.O, NARANAMOOZHY,RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD,HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALUVA,AND BRANCH AT PAZHAVANGADI, RANNY 689 645. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER (DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER) FEDERAL BANK LTD,REGIONAL OFFICE P.B NO.80,COLLEGE ROAD,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. 3. THOMAS P.MATHEW,S/O.P.V.MATHEW AGED 34 YEARS,PANAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ATHIKKAYAM P.O, NARANAMOOZHY, RANNY,PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.671 of 2011 in W.P.(C)No.26635 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition for review of my judgment dated 11.07.2011 in W.P. (C) No.26635/2009 which reads as follows: “After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under the Statute. Permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty.” The review petition is filed on the ground that, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was without taking into account the decision of the Division Bench in Muhammed Ashraf v. Union of India [2008 (4) KLT 1] wherein this Court has specifically held that, no appeal would lie against an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of R.P. No.671 of 2011 in W.P.(C)No.26635 of 2009 -2- Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). True, no appeal would lie against an order under Section 14 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. But that question also has been dealt with by me in the decision in Sami v. Bank of India [2011 (3) KLT 554]. In that decision, I have held that, although as per the Division Bench decision, no appeal would lie against an order under Section 14 of the Act against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the action of the Bank in approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate itself is a measure under Section 13 (4), against which an application under Section 17 would lie before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which only has been stated in the judgment. That being so, there is no merit in the review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/