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