KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR P T Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am surprised as to how the Registry could number the Review Petition filed to review an order passed on another Review Petition filed to review a judgment in an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The papers have been placed before me since the learned Judge who pronounced the judgment in the Original Petition and later the order in the Review Petition has since demitted office. The respondent Bank filed a suit against the loanees for realisation of money by sale of the property mortgaged. The suit was decreed for realisation of money alone without specifying the entitlement of interest on the amount so found due to the Dank. There was also an omission in the decree to create a charge over the property to enable the Bank to sell the same in execution. The Bank thereupon filed an application for correction of the judgment and decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C. for short).

(2.) The Court below allowed the application for correction by clamping a charge on the property by incorporation in the judgment and decree. The rate of interest was directed to be concluded on the basis of the statements to be filed by the Bank and the loanees. The order allowing the application for correction was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 6365 of 2007 on the file of this Court. The Original Petition was dismissed affirming the order allowing the application for correction however reiterating that the rate of interest would be decided as stated by the Court below.

(3.) The Bank thereafter filed R.P. No. 888 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 6365 of 2007 seeking to review the judgment passed therein. The Bank submitted that the rate of interest had been finalised by the Court below even before the Original Petition was disposed of. The Review Petition filed to review the judgment in the Original Petition was disposed of recording the said submission of the Bank. The loanees subsequently filed R.P. No. 1002 of 2010 in R.P. No. 888 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 6365 of 2007. The loanees sought to review the order passed in the Review Petition filed to review the judgment in the Original Petition. The loanees asserted that the rate of interest had been arrived at without hearing them and was also excessive.