IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 890 of 2010(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15243/2006 Dated 05/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, JEWS STREET,KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.VELAYUDHAN,PALLAYIL HOUSE, MUNAMPAM,PALLIPORT.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MAHILA,W/O.P.K.VELAYUDHAN,PALLAYIL HOUSE MUNAMPAM,PALLIPORT.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(RR),KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1&2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... R.P.890/2010 in W.P.(C).15243/2006 .............................................. Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 ORDER The Review Petition is filed with an application to condone the delay of 208 days in filing the same, allegedly being aggrieved of the judgment dated 5.1.2010 passed by this Court, whereby satisfaction of the liability was recorded. The observations made in paragraph 7 and 8 of the judgment are extracted below: 7. “The above submission made from the part of the petitioners is not controverted in any manner by the concerned respondents; nor have they chosen to file any statement despite the specific direction given by this Court on 12.7.2006. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the entire liability covered by Ext.P17 has been satisfied. 8. As the matter stands so, satisfaction of the liability is recorded, making it clear that no further coercive R.P.890/10 2 proceedings pursuant to Ext.P17 shall be pursued against the petitioners in respect of the same cause of action.” 2. The case now put forth by the review petitioner is that, there is some error with regard to the actual liability, in support of which Annexure-A1 has been produced saying that, the said liability had already been conveyed to the writ petitioner. It is conceded by the review petitioner that no counter affidavit or statement was ever filed from the part of the KSFE and that the observation made by this Court in paragraph 7, with reference to the direction given by this Court on 12.7.2006 to file a counter affidavit or statement, is not disputed. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is 'no error apparent on the face of the record', so as to exercise power of review. The law is well settled in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC, 455) holding that the power of review is not a R.P.890/10 3 substitute for appeal. No interference is warranted. Review Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs