Review Petition No. 586 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 586 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SYED MOINUDDIN S/O LATE SYED BURHANDDIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. MRS. TABASSUM JAHAN W/O MR. SYED MOINUIDDIN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.16 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD RAHAMATHNAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SYED MOINUDDIN. ...PETITIONERS (BY MR. SYED MOINUDDIN, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
Facts
Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-CCO STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE NO.65 ST. MARKS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. 3 . THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH (ARMB), 2ND FLOOR ANNEXURE BUILDING STATE BANK OF MYSORE CAMPUS SBM BUILDING, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AT BANGALORE IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 90/2022, DT. 03.09.2022 WHICH IS ALLOWED IN PART MAY PLEASE BE REVIEWED IN INTEREST OF SOCIAL AND NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUNDS OF BONA-FIDE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED ON 21.03.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Legal Reasoning
03.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.A.No.90/2022. 2. Heard petitioner no.1 - party in person on behalf of petitioners. 3. Facts leading to filing of this review petition narrated briefly are, the petitioners had borrowed a sum of Rs.55.10 lakhs from the respondent-Bank under their housing loan scheme in the month of November 2007 and since the petitioners were irregular in repayment of the loan dues, their loan account was treated as Non-performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank. The petitioners had submitted a representation with a request for One Time Settlement (OTS) of the loan dues and the bank had accepted the OTS offer of Rs.22.10 lakhs. On the ground that inspite of acceptance of OTS offer, no action was taken by the bank to close the loan account, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.15853/2019 with a prayer to issue necessary directions to the respondent-Bank to close the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 loan account after receiving the amount of Rs.22.10 lakhs from the petitioners and also to issue necessary directions for return of original documents of the property belonging to the petitioners with no due certificate and update the CIBIL reports of the petitioners. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondent-Bank to close the loan account of the petitioners by accepting Rs.22.10 lakhs being the OTS value and return the documents of title to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Bank had preferred W.A.No.90/2022 which was partly allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was modified with a direction to the petitioners herein to pay the balance of OTS amount to the bank with applicable interest in terms of the interest clause as found in the letter of loan sanction dated 21.08.2007. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Petitioner no.1, who has appeared in person on behalf of the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that this Court was not justified in directing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 the petitioners to pay interest on the OTS amount. Petitioners were ready and willing to pay the accepted OTS amount, but the bank had not received the same. He submits that the petitioners have been financially burdened as a result of the direction given to them to pay interest on the OTS amount. 5. We have heard the party in person extensively and also perused the material on record. 6. The arguments which are now addressed by the party in person has been already considered and appreciated by this Court while disposing of W.A.No.90/2022 and the petitioners cannot be permitted to once again re-argue the same grounds and they cannot be permitted to re-open the case. 7. Perusal of the pleadings in the review petition would go to show that the petitioners have already complied the impugned judgment and have paid the entire amount to the bank including the interest as directed in the impugned judgment. Party in person has fairly submitted to this Court that the petitioners have received the originals of all the title documents after they had paid the entire amount due to the bank with interest as directed. Under the circumstances, at this juncture, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 petitioners cannot be permitted to re-open the case on the ground that they have been financially burdened because of the direction issued to them to pay interest on the OTS amount. 8. This Court considering the fact that the accepted OTS amount had remained with the petitioners unpaid for a considerable period of time and no bona fides were shown by the petitioners to pay the OTS amount to the bank in time, had directed the petitioners to pay applicable interest in terms of the interest clause as found in the letter of loan sanction dated 21.08.2007, and the impugned judgment would also go to show that the bank was restrained from claiming enhanced rate of interest or charge any penalty as provided under the second part of the interest clause in the loan sanction letter dated 21.08.2007. 9. Petitioners have not pointed out any error in the impugned judgment, and on the other hand, party in person has made an attempt to re-argue the very same grounds which were raised in writ appeal. The review jurisdiction cannot be confused with the appellate jurisdiction and the review petitioners cannot be permitted to re-argue the case which is already closed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANOTHER - (2024)2 SCC 362, in paragraphs 11 & 16, has observed as under: "11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , this Court made very pivotal observations : (SCC p. 719, para 9) “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit 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”.” "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 16.3. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 11. In the case of B.DHANALAKSHMI VS M.SHAJAHAN - AIR 2004 MAD 512, it is observed as under: "If the parties are aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, the said power cannot be exercised as is permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'." 12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition as we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15528-DB RP No. 586 of 2024 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with 114 of CPC with a prayer to review the judgment dated