IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 524 of 2009 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2009 IN EA.NO.195/08 IN EP.NO.19/06 IN OS.NO.92/2004 OF SUB COURT, PALA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, MANIMALA BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, KOVOOR BUILDINGS, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW, MR.ARUN THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.C.THOMAS, S/O.CHACKO, KAKKAPPARA HOUSE, MANIMALA KARA, MANIMALA P.O., MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 2. MARYKUTTY, W/O.K.C.THOMAS, KAKKAPPARA HOUSE,MANIMALA KARA, MANIMALA P.O., MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.524 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 3.2.2009 in E.A.No.195 of 2008 in E.P.No. in O.S.92 of 2004 passed by the learned Sub judge, Pala. The decree holder is the petitioner in the above execution petition, which was filed to execute a decree for money. After full satisfaction of the decree was recorded on the basis of the representations made by the counsel for the decree holder that the entire decree debt had been discharged by payment by the judgment debtor, the E.P. was closed on 30.5.2007. Nearly one and a half years later, the decree holder bank filed an application supported by an affidavit by its branch manager that the representation made earlier that the decree debt had been discharged in full by the judgment debtor, which resulted in the recording of the satisfaction, was not correct, and such a representation had been made by its counsel on the basis of the statement made by the judgment debtor before the Manager of the bank, who had come to the bank and represented that the decree debt CRP.524/09 2 would be discharged by payment on that date. Acting on the representation of the judgment debtor, the Manager sent the message to the lawyer of the bank, who, thereupon, represented before the court that the decree had been satisfied. However, it was realised only later that the judgment debtor as represented had not discharged the debt by payment. Setting forth such a case, the review petition was filed with a petition to condone the delay of nearly 18 months in moving such application. The learned Sub Judge, after appreciating the cause shown for condonation of delay and hearing the counsel for the decree holder bank, was not satisfied of the grounds raised for review of the order recording satisfaction of the decree and closing of the execution petition. The applications were dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision by the decree holder bank. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by CRP.524/09 3 the learned Sub Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case that the decree holder has not made out sufficient grounds for review of the order recording satisfaction of the decree debt and closing of the execution petition. The decree holder bank has no case that the judgment debtor had practiced a fraud on the bank manager, but, only that he made a wrong representation as to discharge of the debt. Whatever that be, long delay on the part of the bank in moving the court, if at all its counsel made a false representation before the court as to discharge of the debt, cannot be appreciated as of no consequence. The delay in moving the review petition has decisive effect so far as the request made by the bank for review of the previous order, which resulted in closing of the execution petition after recording satisfaction of the decree debt. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp