2025:KER:26625 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 1052 OF 2023 [FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.09.2023 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT] PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- JOHNSON K JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. K. G. JOSEPH, KADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, MANJUMMEL P.O. PARAVOOR TALUK, ELOOR VILLAGE. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683501. BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) JEFRIN MANUEL RESPONDENT S /RESPONDENT S :- 1 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR – 680 020. 2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR ( R.R), KSFE LTD, 2ND FLOOR ADITHYA PRIME BUILDINGS, D.H.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. 3 THE MANAGER, KSFE ERNAKULAM BRANCH ERNAKULAM LAISON OFFICE (LEGAL), ERANAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 016. 2025:KER:26625 RP No.1052/2023 in WP(C)No.29006/2023 -2- 4 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, KSFE REGIONAL OFFICE, LAISON OFFICE (LEGAL) ERANAKULAM, D.H.ROAD –KOCHI – 682016. SRI K A SALIL NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26625 RP No.1052/2023 in WP(C)No.29006/2023 -3- ORDER This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 21.09.2023, has been impelled by the petitioner on the allegation that, contrary to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent as recorded therein, many of the documents as mentioned in Ext.P4 had not been returned. 2. However, Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan – learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the afore submission of Sri.John Joseph (Roy) – learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that a Memo has been filed by him on 04.09.2024, detailing the documents that were given to the petitioner and which have been recorded correctly in the judgment. He, therefore, prayed that this petition be 2025:KER:26625 RP No.1052/2023 in WP(C)No.29006/2023 -4- dismissed. 3. It is thus obvious that there is a factual dispute between the parties as to the documents that are involved. 4. I am, therefore, of the firm view that this is not an issue that this Court can adjudicate or decide, particularly in a review petition against the judgment. In the afore circumstances, this petition is closed; however, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke any other remedy, including before this Court, as may be available to him in law. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE 2025:KER:26625 RP No.1052/2023 in WP(C)No.29006/2023 -5- APPENDIX OF RP 1052/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-09- 2023 IN W.P. ( C) NO. 29006 OF 2023 ANNEXURE 2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NOT PRODUCED , PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER IS PRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EFFECT MUTATION OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PERSONS REMITTED THE AMOUNT TO RELEASE THE PROPERTY DATED 30-05-2024 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL OF ATTACHMENT OVER THE PROPERTY SOLD TO ME UNDER AUCTION , DATED 30-05-2024 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DTD 10/6/2024 AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY VILLAGE OFFICER ON 11/6/24