T.Azeez v. The State Bank Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2015/16TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 593 of 2015 (E) IN WP(C).14448/2015 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14448/2015 DATED 22-06-2015 ...................
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
--------------------------------------- T.AZEEZ, S/O.T. ALI, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTOLIL HOUSE, J.N. ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
------------------------------------
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD - 679 503.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P.No. 593 of 2015 in W.P(C).No. 14448 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2015
O R D E R
Ashok Bhushan, CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Bank.
2. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment dated 22.6.2015 in W.P(C).No.14448 of 2015. In the Writ Petition an interim order was passed in favour of the writ petitioner, which was challenged by the Bank in W.A.No.1138 of 2015. The Writ Petition was also called and both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were decided by our judgment dated 22.6.2015. The interim order was set aside and the Writ Appeal was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment be reviewed by permitting him to withdraw the
RP.593/15 IN WP(C).1448/15 Writ Petition. In the judgment we have held that there being a settlement in the Lok Adalath, the petitioner was bound to follow the terms and conditions of the settlement and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the scheduled property could not have been challenged in a writ proceedings.
4. We are of the view that there is no ground to review the judgment. The Writ Petition having been dismissed, at this stage we are not persuaded to accept the request of the writ petitioner to permit withdrawal of the Writ Petition. The Review Petition is dismissed. ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE vgs8/7/15