2024:KER:4615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 29TH POUSHA, 1945
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OP (DRT) 266/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
M/S. CAR CARE
13/277 AB, BP ANGADI P.O, KUTTIPURAM ROAD, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 102. REPRESENTED BY MR.
SHAFEEQU P T, AGED 53 YEARS, PALLIPATTU THOOMBEL HOUSE,
BYPASS ROAD, BP ANGADI P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 676102
BY ADVS.
P.T.SHEEJISH
A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917)
APARNA V. DEVASSIA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 M/S. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, HDB FINANCIAL
SERVICES LTD, 2ND FLOOR, LA GRACE BUILDING, WAYANAD
ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, NEAR IQRAA HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673009
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, 2ND FLOOR, LA GRACE
BUILDING, WAYANAD ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, NEAR IQRAA
HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673009
BY ADVS.
P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
SREEJITH K.(K/380/2005)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:4615
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
2
ORDER
The review petition is filed to review the judgment
dated 07.08.2023 passed in the original petition.
2. The review petitioner has stated in the
memorandum of review petition that, the original petition
was filed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to not
proceed with Ext.P3 possession notice pending disposal
of Ext.P4 securitization application. However, when the
original petition was taken up for consideration, a junior
counsel tacitly consented to the suggestion of the counsel
for the respondents that the petitioner was prepared to
pay the outstanding amount of Rs.26,04,921/- in
installments, without realising the consequences. Based
on the submission made by both sides, this Court
disposed of the original petition by directing the
petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in ten equated
monthly installments commencing from 07.09.2023. The
junior counsel was not instructed to make the said
submission; especially since the case was brought up for
the extension of the interim order. The petitioner started
2024:KER:4615
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
3
paying the installments under the impression that the
loan account was rescheduled. It is only a week back that
the petitioner has realised that the amount is much
higher than what the petitioner is liable to pay. Thus,
there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment
because the prayer in the original petition was only to
direct the respondents 1 and 2 to defer further
proceedings till a decision is taken on Ext.P4 application.
Hence, the review petition.
3. Heard; Sri.P.T.Sheejish, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Poulochan Antony,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The original petition came up for admission on
26.11.2021, and the Standing Counsel took notice for the
respondents and sought time for instruction. Accordingly,
the original petition was adjourned to 02.12.2021. On
02.12.2021, this Court directed the respondents not to
dispossess the petitioner subject to the condition the
petitioner depositing Rs.4/- lakh on or before 31.01.2022.
Thereafter, on 12.01.2022, this Court again extended the
2024:KER:4615
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
4
interim order on condition the petitioner depositing a
further amount of Rs.2/- lakh on or before 28.02.2022. It
is conceded that the petitioner complied with both the
orders. It is thereafter, the original petition was posted
on 07.08.2023.
5. On the said date, the learned counsel for the
petitioner made a specific submission before this Court
that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is permitted to
pay the outstanding amount due to the respondents in
equated monthly installments. This is categorically
recorded in paragraph 2 of the judgment. Then, the
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
outstanding amount is Rs.26,04,921/- and the
respondents were amenable to accept the outstanding
amount in six equated monthly installments. But, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
petitioner be granted atleast 15 installments to pay the
outstanding amount.
6. After considering the rival submissions made
across the Bar and to afford the petitioner an opportunity
2024:KER:4615
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
5
to settle the matter, this Court directed the respondents
to defer further coercive proceedings initiated against
the petitioner, subject to condition they pay the
outstanding amount in ten equated monthly installments
commencing from 07.09.2023.
7. It is conceded in the memorandum that, after the
judgment, the petitioner paid the installments on the
impression that the loan was adjusted. But, it was a week
before filing the review petition, he realised the loan
account was not re-schdeuled. The above contention is
totally incorrect and can only be accepted with a pinch of
salt. If the petitioner had such a complaint, he ought not
to have complied with the interim orders dated
02.12.2021 and 12.01.2022 and made the initial
payments. In addition to the above, the judgment was
passed on 07.08.2023, and it is only on 14.12.2023 that
the present review petition is filed on the allegation that
it was a week before the filing of the review petition, he
realised the loan account was not re-scheduled. The said
contention also cannot be accepted because the
2024:KER:4615
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
6
outstanding amount is in unequivocal terms shown in
paragraph 4 of the judgment in black and white. The
petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate on his
undertaking made in Court as per his whims and caprice.
After acting on the judgment and paying the installments,
one fine morning the petitioner cannot wake up from his
slumber, that too after enjoying an interim order from
02.12.2021, and blame a junior counsel. If the petitioner
has a grievance against his counsel, he has alternative
remedies. The review petition is a sheer abuse of process
of law, which cannot be permitted and tolerated. The
review petition is devoid of any merits and only an
experimental litigation.
Resultantly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
rkc/19.01.24
2024:KER:4615
RP NO. 1338 OF 2023
7
APPENDIX OF RP 1338/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2023
