JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2022 This review petition has been filed stating that the amount shown as overdue in the judgment in W.P(C)No.26650/2022 is not the correct amount. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank states that the only difference is that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid as per the interim direction of this Court in the writ petition has not been given credit to while mentioning the overdue amount.[It is submitted that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a difference in the amount mentioned in Ext.p1 notice. Apart from the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the interim order of this Court the amount mentioned is correct.]

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is a substantial difference in the amount now stated to be overdue and mentioned in the Ext.P1 and the amount now stated to be overdue and mentioned in the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the correct amounts are mentioned in Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFASI Act,2002 and Ext.P1 is not a statutory notice and only demanded the pending installments on the date of issuance of the not