IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2007 / 20TH PAUSHA 1928 RP.No. 98 of 2006(H) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1123/2006 dt.13.01.2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION: --------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM C.M., S/O. MATHAI, CHUNDANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KULAPPARACHAL P.O., POOPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KATTAPPANA. 2. C.M. JOSE, S/O. MATHAI, CHUNDANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KULAPPARACHAL P.O., POOPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. C.M. VARGHESE (ALIAS MATHAI VARGHESE), CHUNDANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KULAPPARACHAL P.O., POOPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P. NO.98/2006 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1123/2006-H ----------------------------------------- ORDER The petitioner seeks review of the judgment as the writ petition happened to be dismissed because of the production of a wrong pattayam, which has nothing to do with the property sought to be sold in public auction as per Ext.P5. If that be so, I feel that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a fresh writ petition, producing the correct documents. Without prejudice to that right, this R.P is closed. It is made clear that the judgment under review will not operate as a bar in raising all the contentions of the petitioner against Ext.P5. 10th January, 2007. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/