ORDER : MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J. This review petition is filed against the judgment dated 17.07.2025 in W.P(C) No.18710 of 2025. The writ petition was filed with the following reliefs :- i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to close the loan account of the petitioner availed from the 5 th respondent and leading to Exhibit P1 Agreement as discharged and return the title deeds deposited as security. ii. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner discharged the loan liability due to the respondents 1-5 under Section 63 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT 1872. iii.Issue Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1, 5 and 6 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P18 representation within the time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court. iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction that this honourable court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent bank, which reads as follows:- “3. At the very outset, it is submitted that the above Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. In fact the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court suppressing the fact that he had filed O.P(DRT) No.225 of 2023, O.P(DRT) No.388 of 2023, O.P(DRT) No.131 of 2024 and O.P(DRT) No.272 of 2024 raising the self-same contentions. The judgment in O.P(DRT) No.131 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 is produced herewith which may be marked as Exhibit R2(a). This Hon’ble Court found that the terms of the settlement cannot be altered by this Hon’ble Court, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ( 2023 (1) SCC 540 ). However, this court directed the petitioner to prosecute the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner seeking for stay of the recovery proceedings in S.A.No.615 of 2022, pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner filed O.P.(DRT). No.272 of 2024 again for the self- same relief, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.08.2024, a true copy of which is produced herewith which may be marked as Exhibit R2(b). It is submitted that thereafter petitioner filed O.P.(DRT). No.272 of 2024 again for the self- same relief, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.08.2024, a true copy of which is produced herewith which may be marked as Exhibit R2(b). Thereafter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal by order dated 09.09.2024 rejected the contention of the petitioner herein to deposit the balance amount as per the settlement dated 08.10.2024 and dismissed the stay petition. The copy of the printout of the proceedings of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.3239/2024 in S.A.No.615 of 2022 is produced herewith which may be marked as Exhibit R2(c), It is submitted that the above order has become final and the petitioner is bound by the findings therein. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the above judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. 4. This defendant deny all the averments and allegations in the Writ Petition except the extent specifically admitted hereunder. It is true that Exhibit P1 settlement was arrived with the petitioner for payment of the amounts due to the bank. The settlement was arrived as per the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, the petitioner was bound to comply with the terms strictly and in case of default the bank was entitled to cancel the settlement. In the case on hand, it is submitted that the petitioner could not pay the amount as stipulated in Exhibit P1. Therefore, Exhibit P2 was issued by the bank and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. It is settled position that the terms of settlement can be varied or changed only by mutual consent between the parties as contemplated u/s.62 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT . The court cannot vary or alter the terms of a contract under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and others reported in 2023 SCC 805 and State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (223 (1) SCC 540) has affirmed the above position and has further held that the commercial wisdom of the banks cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. 5. In view of the above, the petitioner was bound to pay the entire amount as per the statement of accounts maintained by the bank and not as per the settlement which did not fructify. It is true that the bank had tried to get approval for extension of time from the competent authority. However, in view of the delay in payment of the amounts by the petitioner, he himself foreclosed the benefit under Exhibit P1 settlement.” 3. Finding that the petitioner had suppressed the details of the cases filed and their judgments in O.P(DRT) No.225 of 2023, O.P(DRT) No.388 of 2023, O.P(DRT) No.131 of 2024 and O.P(DRT) No.272 of 2024, where the issue was more or less the same and expecting a dismissal on the ground of suppression of facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, without prejudice to the right to file a fresh writ petition. The liberty sought by the petitioner was not granted on account of the suppression noticed above, and placing reliance on the proviso to Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue his reliefs in the pending Securitisation Application before the Tribunal. 4. This review is filed contending that there was no suppression as it was not material for the determination of the lis between the parties. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also cited. The contention on merit was that the petitioner had discharged the entire loan liability placing reliance on Section 63 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT , as the petitioner had received whatsapp messages from the third respondent directing payment of amounts which was received by the respondents and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get discharge of the liability under Section 63 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT . 5. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record at all, warranting any interference in this review. The fact that the filing or the judgments in the above cases were not mentioned is not disputed, and the contention is that the same was not relevant. This cannot be accepted. That apart, the Securitisation Application preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Tribunal and therefore, liberty to file a fresh writ petition could not have been granted in the circumstances mentioned above. This cannot be accepted. That apart, the Securitisation Application preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Tribunal and therefore, liberty to file a fresh writ petition could not have been granted in the circumstances mentioned above. Consequently, there is no merit in this review petition, and the same is dismissed.