IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1244 of 2008(V) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32313/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. T.R.VALSALA, 52 YEARS, D/O.ROSILY, PANENKERS VEEDU, KANIAMPAZHANJI, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.S.DEEPA, 31 YEARS, W/O.S.VIJAYAKUMAR, SIVABHAVAN, KACHANI SCHOOL JUNCTION, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOTTUKAL BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI - 400 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 5. K.SREEKANTH, WHITE HOUSE, THANNIVILA, VEDIVECHANCOIL P.O., PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1244 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This review petition is filed seeking variation of the condition imposed for withholding physical dispossession. As noticed in the judgment sought to be reviewed, the principal debtor had obtained an instalment facility on 7.4.2008. No amount was paid. While relegating the petitioner for statutory remedies, actual dispossession was stayed on deposit of Rs.15 lakhs. I find no error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. It is, however, clarified that the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the securitisation application can go on since the court has not imposed any condition for the institution of that application. However, in view of the direction regarding stay on payment, as contained in the judgment sought to reviewed, the DRT shall not pass any orders contradicting the terms of the said judgment. This, again, governs only interim orders before the DRT. The Tribunal will not be bound at final hearing of the securitisation RP.1244/08 Page numbers application, by anything stated herein or any term fixed in the judgment dated 6.11.2008, which is sought to be reviewed. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed, subject to the above clarifications. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.