IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 1404 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2199/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, WHITE ROSE, IRINGAL, VATAKARA VIA., CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK, CHALAPPURAM BRANCH INDUS AVENUE, KALLAI ROAD CALICUT. 2. VIJAYA BANK, INDUS AVENUE , KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.1404 OF 2008 in W.ANo.2199 OF 2008-E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Basheer, J: Petitioner in this review petition is the appellant in W.A.No.2199/2008. The prayer in the review petition is extracted hereunder: “For these among other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the judgment by clarifying that the properties shown as serial Nos.5,7,8 and 9 can be proceeded only after the rest of the properties are sold and if the proceeds thereof are insufficient to wipe off the entire debts.” 2. In ground B of the memorandum of review petition, it is stated that Paragraph-9 of the judgment ”if singled out, conveys a meaning contrary to the intention of the judgment”. It is further contended that the respondent Bank is attempting to capitalize on the said observations. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has sought for review of the judgment in the writ appeal “to give effect to the judgment”. 2 R.P.No.1404/08 3. We are afraid, the above prayer made by the petitioner is totally misconceived and untenable. We have carefully perused the judgment in the writ appeal. We do not find any ambiguity or ambivalence in the judgment. The judgment is self explicit and clear. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be entertained at all. 4. However, there is considerable force in the contention raised by the petitioner in the face of Annexure-A1 communication issued by the Bank two days after the pronouncement of the judgment. The Deputy General Manager of the Bank is seen to have issued Annexure-A1 on November 28, 2008. The relevant passage in the above communication is extracted hereunder: “Further, the Writ Appeal 2199/2008 in WP 32022/08 filed by you has been disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.11.08 and the final order is understood as under: “The appellant will surrender vacant possession of the properties shown as serial No.1 to 4,6,10 & 11 in annexure A to the writ appeal and if any of the tenants of item No.1 & 2 properties obstruct the taking over of possession, the bank is entitled to take vacant possession of the properties shown as serial no.5,7,8 & 9 in annexure A to writ appeal in addition to the properties shown as serial No.3,4,6,10 & 11 in annexure A to the writ appeal”. 3 R.P.No.1404/08 The communication further states thus: “In the light of the above all, you are advised to discharge the debt in full forthwith for averting the enforcement of the security interest. At any rate, if the debt is not discharged in full on or before 05/12/08, you are requested to surrender vacant possession of the assets in terms of the order dated 26.11.08 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.2199/2008.” 5. Obviously, the officer of the Bank has written a judgment of his own in the matter, without even bothering to peruse the judgment of this Court and understand what were the directions contained therein. The so called directions contained in Annexure-1 are at variance from those contained in the judgment in Writ Appeal. 6. Learned standing counsel for the Bank submits that he has already advised his client to withdraw the above communication. He further submits that appropriate steps in this regard will be taken by the Bank. The review petition is closed recording the above submissions. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE). cl 4 R.P.No.1404/08