The review petitioner seeks review of the judgment in W.P(C)7843/2014 dated 22.07.2014, which was common to two writ petitions. W.P(C) 11541/2014 was filed by the review petitioner herein and the other by the 3rd respondent, the latter of which is now sought to be reviewed. Admittedly the review petitioner had mortgaged certain properties with the respondent Bank for a loan availed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent challenged recovery steps initiated against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was aggrieved with the proceedings initiated for recovery of amounts in two defaulted loan accounts. Directions were issued upon the undertaking of the 3rd respondent, which undertaking has been satisfied and the 3rd respondent has already satisfied the entire loan amounts due from the 3rd respondent. The review petitioner herein, in his writ petition has sought for release of the entire documents mortgaged by him in favour of the 3rd respondent as a guarantor. 2. The 3rd respondent has received the documents pledged by him with the respondent Bank. However, the RPNo.651/2014.
: 2 :
properties mortgaged by the review petitioner herein in favour of the 3rd respondent has not been released by the respondent Bank. Even when the writ petition was heard, it was submitted that three loans availed of by the review petitioner are remaining in default and hence the properties mortgaged by the petitioner even with respect to the loan of the 3rd respondent; cannot be released since the Bank was exercising general lien over those properties.
4. The review petition has been filed claiming that the review petitioner has availed of only two loans and that he has mortgaged certain other items of property as security in the said loans. It is only in such circumstances, that the review was filed claiming release of the property mortgaged in the loan of the 3rd respondent, especially since the 3rd respondent has settled the entire amounts due in his account.
5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Bank based on the statement filed would concede that there were only two loans availed by the review petitioner. But, however, with respect to the general lien, the Bank maintains its stands insofar as release of the properties mortgaged are concerned. In such circumstance, it is not a matter which can be considered in a review petition. Definitely a statement of the bank recorded that there were three loans availed of by RPNo.651/2014.
: 3 :
the petitioner would stand corrected since, the bank concedes that only two loans were availed by the 3rd respondent and defaulted. It is to be noticed that the review petitioner has filed review in the writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent and seeks the prayer of release of the property which cannot be granted. Especially in a review petition looking at the contours of review jurisdiction as has been succinctly stated in State of West Bengal v. Kemal Sen Gupta [2008 (8) SCC 612]. Review petition dismissed.
6. Review petitioner submits that if he gets release of one of the properties, he could settle the other two loan accounts. That is a decision the Bank has to arrive at after looking at the value of the property mortgaged. If the review petitioner makes an application to that effect, the bank shall consider the same.
With the above observation, review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge