IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 840 of 2009(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17905/2008 Dated 08/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------ T.N.SANKARAN, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, THJYMBAYIL HOUSE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KODANAD VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, MURALIKA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER/SALES OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. S. CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O. SANKARA REDDIYAR, KULAMKKAL HOUSE, KAMALA KOTTAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. MR. A.S.P. KURUP (SENIOR ADVOCATE) MR. BABY KURIAKOSE MR.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R1 MR.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 MR.K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... R.P. No. 840 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This review petition is filed by a person who was not a party to the writ petition in which Annexure C judgment has been passed. The writ petition was filed against a bank in respect of the amounts due from the petitioner in the writ petition to that bank, in which I granted opportunity to the petitioner in the writ petition to pay off the amounts in installments. The grievance of the petitioner in the review petition is that that judgment is now pressed into service by the petitioner in the writ petition, in O.S. No. 107 of 2008, before the Sub Court, Perumbavoor, filed by the petitioner in the review petition against the petitioner in the writ petition contending that, that judgment is a complete answer to the claims of the petitioner in the review petition, in the said suit. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. Annexure C judgment in W.P(C) No. 17905 of 2008 does not in any way deal with the dispute between the petitioner in R.P. No. 840 of 2009 -2- the review petition and the petitioner in the writ petition. That solely deals with the liability of the petitioner in the writ petition for payment of amounts demanded by the 1st respondent bank in that writ petition. Therefore I make it clear that, that judgment cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner in the writ petition for any purpose, in the suit pending between the petitioner in the review petition and the petitioner in the writ petition, as O.S. No. 107 of 2008 before the Sub court, Perumbavoor. With this clarification the review petition is disposed of. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs