IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 337 of 2002(I)
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL
Vs
1. STEVEN FERNANDEZ, S.S.COTTAGE,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
R.P. No. 337 of 2002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 23rd day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is a petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. No.
7440/2002, seeking review of the judgment dated 26-3-2002 in that
original petition. The judgment reads thus:
“No instructions is forthcoming, counsel submits, from the
first respondent in spite of posting the case for instructions. The
petitioner’s vehicle, which the petitioner purchased on availing
loan from the first respondent, has been seized by the first
respondent, due to default in repayment. The petitioner submits
that he had been hospitalised and could not conduct the business.
That was the reason why the default occurred. The petitioner
shows preparedness to remit the amount. He submits that the
period of loan has not yet expired. Accordingly, the original
petition is disposed of as follows:- If the petitioner remits an
amount of Rs.75000, the respondents shall release the vehicle to
the petitioner on further condition that the petitioner shall remit
the balance amount towards the defaulted instalments until May
2002 by 25.5.2002. He shall also remit the regular instalments
from the month of July onwards. If any of these two conditions is
not complied with by the petitioner, necessarily the vehicle can be
repossessed.”
The ground for review is that even before filing of the original petition
on 18-3-2002, the vehicle in question had already been sold, which
fact could not be brought to notice of this Court, because before the
standing counsel could get instructions in the matter, on 26-3-2002
the original petition was disposed of.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
original petition also.
3. From the proceedings , I find that the original petition came
up for admission on 19-3-2002 and on the next posting date, the same
was disposed of on 26-3-2002. The KFC would contend that in view of
the fact that the officers of the KFC were busy with the work of
finalization of accounts for the year end, they could not give
instructions to the standing counsel. Therefore, they seek recalling
R.P. No. 337/2002 -: 2 :-
the impugned judgment and rehearing the original petition on merits.
This is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition.
But, I find that in view of the fact that the original petition was filed
on 18-3-2002 and judgment was passed on 26-3-2002, sufficient time
was not granted to the respondents to place their contentions before
this Court.
Accordingly, the judgment dated 26-3-2002 is recalled and the
original petition is restored to file. Post the original petition for
hearing.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.