IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 392 of 2011(G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2066/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- RAJAN.C.S,AYYAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS,CHOOTHAPALLY HOUSE, NEAR M.V.HIGH SCHOOL, ARIYALOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676312 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT(S) ----------------------------------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,HEAD OFFICE MALAPPURAM,MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM P.O.-676505,REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, PARAPPANANGADY, MALAPPURAM DIST-676303 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.392 of 2011 in W.P.(C).No.2066 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The review Petition is filed on the premise that the prayer in the writ petition was only for consideration of Ext.P4 representation and still this court imposed conditions for payment of the arrears in instalments. It is further stated that imposition of such a condition was not known to the petitioner till he received the certified copy of the judgment. 2. It is specifically recorded in the judgment that, learned counsel appearing for petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any challenge against the impugned proceedings nor he is intending to invoke any statutory remedy. It is recorded that, on the other hand, learned counsel made a limited prayer to permit regularisation of the account by permitting payment of the amounts in arrears in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. R.P.392/11 in WP(C). 2066/11 -2- 3. It is evident that the condition stipulated for permitting regularisation was imposed only on the basis of such appeal and undertaking made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner, and such representation was made only on behalf of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that there is no averments in this review petition denying the fact that the counsel had made such request and undertakings. On many occasions the court is moulding relief on the basis of oral requests of the counsel and on the basis of undertakings made on behalf of the parties in the case. Such reliefs on many occasions will be distinct and different from what was sought for in the writ petition. Fact remaining as stated above, it is quite uncharitable on part of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to raise a contention that the conditions were imposed by this court beyond the prayer in the writ petition, without knowledge of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not having knowledge about such conditions imposed till copy of the judgment was obtained. The conduct of the petitioner as well as the counsel in this R.P.392/11 in WP(C). 2066/11 -3- regard is highly unbecoming. However, I reserve any further comments on this aspect. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I find that the ground raised seeking review, is not one coming within the ambit and scope of the grounds which normally warrants review of a judgment. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb