IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 1014 of 2010 in WPC NO. 31889 OF 2010( E) ---------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- LOVELY VARGHESE, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.MR. C.V. VARGHESE, CHAKIATH HOUSE CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHARA ROAD,KOCHI-17 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHARRA ROAD, KOCHI-17 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, EZHIKKARA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- R.P. No.1014 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.31889 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010. O R D E R The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). This Court had shown indulgence in permitting the petitioner to pay the balance amount in instalments, on the basis of the specific pleadings made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is limiting her prayer to the extent of permitting payment of the entire balance amount in instalments, within a reasonable time. 2. Now the review petition is filed on the premise that the mortgaged property is an 'agricultural land', which is exempted from the purview of the SARFAESI Act and that the petitioner is intending to challenge the proceedings on that basis. Having been enjoyed the benefit of the R.P. No.1014 of 2010 2 judgment, in which an equitable relief was sought for, on the basis of specific relinquishment of the challenge, the petitioner could not be permitted to turn around and to raise challenges against the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while disposing the writ petition the petitioner was not aware about the legal position through which the land in question was exempted from the purview of SARFAESI Act. Even assuming that if there is any ignorance of law the same could not be pleaded as a ground for review the judgment, which is issued on the basis of concessions made. 4. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this Review Petition. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab