Kerala High Court
Thalayazham Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs K. Kumaran on 25 July, 2012
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/30TH SRAVANA 1934
RP.No. 756 of 2012 (N)
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.16532/2012 DATED 25-07-2012.
...............
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
THALAYAZHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NO. 509, THALAYAZHAM. P.O., VAIKOM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.O. JOS.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,
SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WPC :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. K. KUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. KUTTAPPAN, CHATHUKKOPALLITHARA,
THALAYAZHAM. P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 607.
2. B.L. SEBASTIAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O. LUKA, BHAGAVATHYPARAMBU HOUSE,
THALAZHAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 607.
3. T.N. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. NAN4APPAN, THOTTUCHIRA HOUSE,
THALAYAZHAM. P.O., PIN-686 607.
4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
KOTTAYAM-686 002.
5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VAIKOM-686 141.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.ALEX M.SCARIA.
R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.G. GOPAKUMAR.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
RP.No. 756 of 2012 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE 3 OF THE BYE LAW
OF THE BANK CONTAINING CLAUSE 4 &.
ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/07/2012 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Review Petition No.756 of 2012
in
WP(C).No.16532 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st August, 2012.
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks to review the Judgment dated 25.7.2012 passed in WP(C).No.16532/2012. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P2, Annexure-A2 notice has been issued by the fourth respondent directing one of the members of the review petitioner society to appear before the said authority with necessary documents to prove his eligibility to be a member of the society. According to the review petitioner, the direction of this Court has been mis- understood by the fourth respondent.
2. It is trite that review of a Judgment is permissible only where it is shown that the same suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, or that there are other sufficient reasons justifying a review thereof. No RP.NO.756/2012 in WP(C).No.16532/2012.
2 circumstances justifying a review of the Judgment has been brought to my notice. The direction in the Judgment is to consider Ext.P2 complaint filed by the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders. I notice from Annexure-A2 that the said document does not refer to the Judgment of this Court. In other words, there is nothing in Annexure-A2 to indicate that the same has been issued pursuant to the direction of this Court. I am not satisfied that the Judgment requires to be reviewed as sought for.
The Review Petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-