Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Chairman & Managing Director Pubjab National Bank 4th Floor, 5 Sansad Marg New
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21968-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 3 of 2021 1. Mrs Polly Chakraborty W/o Late Dr Achinto Chakraborty Aged About 40 Years R/o F-6, B-2, 3rd Floor, Shriram Towers Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Chairman & Managing Director Pubjab National Bank 4th Floor, 5 Sansad Marg New Delhi-7, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. Regional Manager Punhab National Bank, Circle Office, Pandari Raipiur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager/authorized Officer Punjab National Bank, Budhwari Bazar Branch, Behind Railway Post Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
considered and dismissed by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed and therefore the review petitioner will not be permitted to ask for re-appreciation of facts and grounds already considered and decided. In fact, the instant review petition on the grounds enumerated therein appears to be an appeal in disguise. The grounds taken by petitioner are either that the finding recorded by the Court is not legally 4 tenable, or that the same is perverse, or that the same is unacceptable. A judgment/order may be wrong, erroneous, incorrect, legally untenable, etc. but nevertheless remains a valid judgment in the eyes of law against which the only course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal against the same. Such grounds do not constitute errors of fact or of law on the face of the record as would call for a review. In the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP and Ors., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “10........A point that has been heard and decided cannot form a ground for review even if assuming that the view taken in the judgment under review is erroneous.” 5. Even, it is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has observed thus: “8. It is well settled law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly 5 confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations: “It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it…….” 6. In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677, it was held thus:- “25. …....The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 6 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 7. In case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through Lrs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was held thus:- “18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.” 8. As far as the decision relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is concerned, the same is of no help to the applicant because a subsequent judgment of the superior Court taking a contrary view on the point covered by the judgment sought to be reviewed does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. On this very issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent pronouncement in case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. reported in (2024) SCC 315, has observed thus:- 7 “57. This Court in Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N., has read the Explanation as follows: (SCC pp.96-97, para 52) “52….The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that if the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 58. The final one is a decision of the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Adhar Review-5J). The majority was of the following view: (SCC p.5, para 2);- “2.The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed.” 9. Keeping in mind the decisions quoted above and considering the grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition, this Court is of considered view that review petitioner failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting 8 review of the order dated 23.10.2019. Being so, the review petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI dismissed. No order as to cost. Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Naresh Kumar Chandrawanshi) Judge Judge roshan/-
Arguments
: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted For respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate by Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu and Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandrawanshi, JJ Order On Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 8.5.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking review of the judgment/order dated 23.10.2019 passed in Writ Appeal 2 No.398/2019 affirming the order dated 1.8.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.807/2015 thereby refusing to entertain writ petition on the ground of availability of efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal/application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 against the proceedings initiated under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would argue that the view expressed by learned Single Judge for not entertaining writ petition against the order passed by the DRT i.e. availability of alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, is not correct because very initiation of proceeding by respondent Bank before the DRT was not maintainable in view of the fact that the subject matter of the proceeding i.e. the amount which was sought to be recovered by respondent Bank from petitioner herein was less than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) and according to the provisions of Section 1 (4) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the provisions of the Act of 1933 would not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution is less than Rs.10 lakh and therefore, it was not open to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to entertain the matter as the amount claimed by respondent bank was less than Rs.10 lakh. He next contended that the 3 respondent Bank without following the due procedure prescribed in the Act of 2002 and without serving proper notice as prescribed under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 initiated recovery proceeding against petitioner for taking possession of the secured assets and hence the entire proceedings have become vitiated. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the decision in case of Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Prudent ARC Limited and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 12. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the order which is sought to be reviewed. 4. Perusal of the contents of review petition would show that the review petitioner has filed this review mainly on the ground that writ Court has committed illegality in refusing to entertain writ petition on account of availability of alternate remedy. The grounds raised in review petition are the same which have already been raised in writ appeal, which were duly