IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 536 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9726/2009 DATED 26/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- NANDIPULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NANDIPULAM P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT 1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOTTIAN ELSY, W/O.LATE THOMAS, THOTTIAN HOUSE, NANDIPULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THOTTIAN THOMAS SOLOMON, S/O.LATE THOMAS, THOTTIAN HOUSE, NANDIPULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.V.V. NANDAGOPAL. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.536 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 O R D E R 1.Heard. 2.This application for review of judgment is essentially an application for re-hearing in the light of the fact that the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued dispensing with notice to the third respondent therein (review petitioner), preserving its right to move for review of the judgment. 3.The writ petition was ordered without entering on merits. In the light of the stand of the writ petitioners that they need pay only an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- if entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1 circular, it was ordered that such amount shall be paid on or before 31.3.2009. The intention of that was two fold. If the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the circular, they need not be deprived of it merely because the payment is not made within the financial year. If otherwise, at least an RP.536/09 Page numbers amount of Rs.3,15,000/- is given to the bank. As of now, the petitioners have paid that amount. The direction issued in the judgment was that the Joint Registrar would hear the petitioners and the bank (review petitioner) and take a final decision on the question of applicability of Ext.P1 circular to the case of the writ petitioners. That judgment, in no way, concludes any issue against the review petitioner. It does not foreclose any opportunity of hearing for the review petitioner. As a matter of fact, it directs that the review petitioner has also to be heard by the Joint Registrar. The apprehension sounded in the review petition is that Ext.P1 circular should not be applicable and without that being applicable, the writ petitioners have to pay much more than the amount offered by them. This will necessarily depend upon the decision that the Joint Registrar may take. Not only that, even if the bank is aggrieved by that decision, the judgment sought to be reviewed does not stand in the way of the bank challenging such decision. This review petition is, hence, ordered clarifying that the judgment sought to be reviewed in no RP.536/09 Page numbers manner inhibits the right of the bank to recover all amounts that may be due to it subject to the decision of the Joint Registrar on the applicability of Ext.P1 circular to the case of the petitioners. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.30/6.