IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 426 of 2010(H) --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1474/2010 Dated 06/04/2010) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------- K.S.RAJEE, AGED 54, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ORIGINALLY RESIDING AT KUZHITHOLU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT AND NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUMELY P.O., ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPANA BRANCH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. SRI.KURIACHAN GEORGE, VEZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDI, KATTAPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN BY ADV. MR. M.M. SAYED MUHAMMED, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. R.P.No. 426 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) 1474 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 27th May , 2010 O R D E R This Petition is filed seeking to review the interim order dated 06.04.2010, whereby it was made clear that, since the balance amount of Rs. Four lakhs was not deposited by the petitioner in compliance with the direction given by this Court earlier (vide order dated 18.03.2010), the interim order would not subsist any more. After passing the said order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. Four lakhs and has now come before this Court stating that the order dated 06.04.2010 is to be reviewed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Counsel for the opposite side. The scope of the present proceedings is revealed from the version of the Review Petitioner himself as put forth in the Synopsis, which is extracted below: “Though strictly speaking there is no error apparent on the face of record, but because of R.P.No. 426 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) 1474 OF 2010 2 the subsequent development it becomes necessary that the order passed on 06.04.2010 is reviewed and the interim order originally granted is continued.” 3. Obviously, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the position is well known to the Review Petitioner himself. The only case is that, subsequent to the order , the petitioner has effected the deposit and intends to have the interim order revived, for which the present proceeding in the form of 'Review Petition' cannot be held as the proper remedy. The idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. There is no merit in the Review Petition and accordingly it is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk