IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 113 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15862/2010 Dated 20/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER.NO.2 IN WP(C) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.S.VINOD, S/O.SIVADAS, KIZHUPILLIL HOUSE, CHERUMUTTAPUZHAKKARA, KAKKANAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.K.V.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/1ST PETITIONER IN WP(C) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 030. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY.PIN- 682 011 3. THE THASILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK.PIN-682 011. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LIMITED, KALYANI TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, DESHABIMANI JUNCTION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 017. 5. GLADIS JOSEPH, W/O.FRANCIS GEORGE, LIG NO.841, LIG PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 6. MARY JOSEPH @ CELIN, D/O.P.D.JOSEPH, FLAT NO.S, FIFTH FLOOR, DOOR NO.C.C.NO.39/3018 C-2, DEWANS CHAMBER, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.PIN-682 011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.113 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner in this Review Petition is one among the petitioners in the writ petition. Challenges raised by him against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) at the behest of the 4th respondent, was considered while disposing of the writ petition. This court specifically found that no ground is established for interdicting with the proceedings in any manner. But while disposing the writ petition, as a gesture of indulgence, the proceedings were directed to be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within three weeks from the date of the judgment. 2. In this Review Petition the petitioner is trying to agitate the very same contentions once again. Nothing is stated to the effect that this court has omitted to consider any material aspects nor the petitioner is attempting to bank upon R.P.113/11 -2- any fresh materials, which could not be brought to the notice of this court at the time when the writ petition was disposed of. There is no error apparent on the fact of record, pointed out in this Review Petition. The only statement in the Review Petition is that due to lack of proper representation the contentions could not be brought to notice of this court while passing the judgment. But, as stated above, the petitioner is once again agitating the very same contentions which were considered in the judgment. Statement of the petitioner is that the judgment is putting him to severe hardships. I am of the considered opinion that it is not a ground which can be raised for review of a judgment. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the terms of the judgment, the remedy lies elsewhere. 3. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that the Review Petition deserves no merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb