Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
THE SHORANUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK – Appellant
Versus
DURGA E.P – Respondent
RP NO. 1532 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO.36445 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
Correcting factual inaccuracies in judgments while ensuring compliance with directives does not warrant overturning the original ruling.
Headnote:The review petition sought reconsideration of the order dated 14.10.2025 concerning EMI facilities. The court directed remittance of a substantial amount which was complied with by the petitioner. The court corrected terminology regarding the loan type without altering its judgment substantively. The conclusion affirms the adherence to previous directives.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for review concerning emi facilities and compliance with previous judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. correcting loan type terminology in judgment without changing the outcome. (Para 3) |
ORDER
(Dated this the 18th day of December, 2025)
This review petition is filed by the respondents in WP(C)
No.36445/2025 for review of the order dated 14.10.2025.
2. The ground raised is that this Court did not consider whether EMI facility is provided in respect of the overdue facility maintained by the bank, and in two other cases, this Court had directed deposit of 50% of due amount, and the balance in one instalment. Therefore, the petitioner seeks issuance of a similar direction in the present case.
3. The judgment directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10 lakhs within one month and the balance amount in nine equal monthly instalments, starting from 05.12.2025. It is now well as the respondent bank, the amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been remitted without default. Therefore, there is compliance with the directions in the judgment till date.
submits that there is an error in paragraph 3 of the judgment, wherein it is stated that the loan is a housing loan, whereas, in fact, it is a cash credit facility. To that extent, the word appearing in 3rd paragraph as “housing loan” is now corrected as “cash credit facility”. Since there is compliance with the judgment till date, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment, except to the extent mentioned above.
The review petition is disposed of as above.
