IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 882 of 2007(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.6762/1991 Dated 24/08/2000 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/4RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ THE ARALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.O. ARALAM, VIA. IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. GEORGE VETTIKKATTIL, PO, VALATHODU, VIA PAYAM,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE (S) DEPARTMENT, THRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.882/2007 in O.P. No.6762/1991 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th July, 2009. O R D E R C.M.Application No.394/2007 : There is a delay of 2531 days in filing the review petition. Though the application is vehemently opposed, having regard to the nature of the order I propose to pass in the review petition, it is only appropriate that the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The review petition is at the instance of the third respondent Bank. The writ petition was filed claiming the benefits under Ext.P1, Kerala Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. This court, by judgment dated 24.8.2000 held that the writ petitioner was entitled to the benefit. But, it is seen from the review petition that prior to the judgment, the petitioner himself had availed another loan from the Bank, whereby the said amount had already been adjusted. Learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent claims, that liability of the writ petitioner was also wiped off, and as on today, the writ petitioner has no liability to the Bank. The above submissions are recorded. It is clarified R.P. No.882/2007 in O.P. No.6762/1991 2 that the Bank has no liability as per the declaration in the judgment to repay the amount since the writ petitioner had not actually remitted any amounts to the Bank, but only adjusted the amounts in subsequent loans. The review petition is hence closed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.882/2007 in O.P. No.6762/1991 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 20th July, 2009.