High Court Kerala High Court

The Nileswar Service … vs L.B.Beefathumma on 16 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
The Nileswar Service … vs L.B.Beefathumma on 16 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 235 of 2007(D)


1. THE NILESWAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. L.B.BEEFATHUMMA, KOTTAPPURAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :16/03/2007

 O R D E R
                               K. THANKAPPAN,  J.

                                 --------------------------------------

                               R.P.NO.235 OF 2007

                                            in

                        W.P.(C).NO.35526 OF 2005-D

                               ---------------------------

                  Dated this the  16th  day of March,  2007.


                                    O R D E R

This is an application for review of the judgment of this

Court in W.P.(C).No.35526/2005. By the above judgment,

this Court directed the 1st respondent in the writ

petition/petitioner herein to consider Ext.P2 application

filed by the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders

thereon and if the petitioner is found eligible for one time

settlement or any other benefit, that shall be considered.

2. The revision is sought on the ground that the defaulter

had already paid all the dues to the Bank and he requested to

re-convey the property and the Bank is also willing for that.

But, for that purpose, the review of the order is not alerted.

Even if the review petitioner Bank wants to re-convey the

property, the Bank can move this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition for that

purpose, provided that there is no provision in the Act and

R.P.NO.235/2007 2

Rules for the purpose sought.

With the above observations, the review petition stands

dismissed.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

cl