Anilkumar V.U. v. Authorised Officer, Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/7TH PHALGUNA, 1936 RP. No.117 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-01-2015 IN WP(C) 34831/2014). ....

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

-------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR V.U,AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.UNNI, VILAKKITHARA HOUSE,PATTITHADOM PAZGABNJI P.O, HRISSUR-680542.

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

---------------------------------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER,DIWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. KMM BUILDING,PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-25 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,S.C.

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

------------------------------- R.P.NO.117 OF 2015 IN W.P.(C).NO.34831 OF 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015

O R D E R

In the review petition, the petitioner seeks a review of the judgment dated 7.1.2015, whereby this Court had granted the petitioner a facility of paying the overdue amounts in respect of the loan, in six equal monthly installments commencing from 30.1.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that what he had originally sought for was a period of six months for discharging the overdue amount to the respondent bank and not six equal monthly installments. I note from the averments in the writ petition, and the judgment that was rendered by this Court that, although the petitioner's request was for granting six months time to discharge the overdue amounts, this Court did not find it necessary to grant the petitioner the period of six months for discharging the liability and instead, directed the petitioner to effect the payment in six monthly installments. This was to ensure that the petitioner continued to make monthly payments during the six months period which was eventually granted to him in

R.P.No.117/2015 the judgment. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to review the judgment dated 7.1.2015. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

I take note, however, of the submission of counsel for the review petitioner that the petitioner has already paid the first installment as directed in the judgment dated 7.1.2015 and that he is now facing some financial problem and, consequently, cannot effect the second installment payment within the time granted by this Court. I therefore, permit the petitioner to effect the payment of the 2nd and 3rd installments together on 30.3.2015 making it clear that, save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the judgment dated 7.1.2015 will remain unaltered.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp