The review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 is limited and requires evident errors for modification; mere non-compliance with judicial orders does not suffice to invoke review.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant, who availed a business loan for Rs.20,00,000/- in the year 2023 from the 1^st respondent Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd., which is a private non-banking financial institution, by mortgaging his property, filed W.P.(C)No.12478 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 sale notice dated 27.02.2025 issued by 1^st respondent and Ext.P2 notice dated 12.03.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur in Crl.M.P.No.2272 of 2025, an application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act); and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Bank to grant 12 monthly installments to pay the overdue amount and to regularise the loan account.

2. In W.P.(C)No.12478 of 2025, the respondents filed counter affidavit dated 26.03.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have also raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawathi Tandon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC 786] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [AIR 2024 SC 1893]

3. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 27.03.2025, disposed of W.P.(C)No.12478 of 2025 with the directions contained in paragraph 5 of that judgment, which reads thus;

“5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent financial institution to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.22,32,662/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the petitioner and regularise the loan account of the petitioner in the following manner;

i. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 03.04.2025; The balance overdue amount along with any accrued interest, costs and charges shall be repaid in 10 equal monthly instalments;

ii. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 05.05.2025 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 5^th day of every succeeding months;

iii. Petitioner shall continue to pay the regular EMI’s/instalments along with the instalments directed above;

iv. In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent financial institution shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the law;

v. If the petitioner pays the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 03.04.2025, the confirmation of any sale held on 04.04.2025 shall be postponed. If the petitioner fails to comply with any condition, it will be open to the respondent financial institution to either confirm sale if any held on 04.04.2025 or to conduct fresh sale of the property of the petitioner.”

4. The appellant did not comply with any of the conditions stipulated in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 27.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12478 of 2025. Seeking review of the said judgment, the appellant filed R.P.No.748 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That review petition ended in dismissal by the order dated 25.07.2025, which is under challenge in this writ appeal filed invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958