Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.151 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) UCO Bank, Sambalpur …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Sangram Keshari Khuntia …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in this case throughHybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party(s) : : Mr. Subrat Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:- 18.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: - 29.11.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. This Review Petition has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the C.P.C.” for brevity) seeking review of the order
Legal Reasoning
dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17320 of 2023. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts leading to the present review petition are that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17320 of Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 2023 challenging the orders dated 19.05.2022, 25.08.2022 and 06.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in Execution Case No. 28 of 2011, on the ground that the said orders were wholly without jurisdiction in view of the mandate of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 3. In the said writ proceedings, the petitioner had specifically urged that pursuant to the impugned orders, the opposite party had withdrawn an amount of ₹5,00,000/- and a prayer was made for restitution of the said amount, as the withdrawal had been effected solely on the strength of orders that were without jurisdiction. 4. By judgment dated 16.05.2025, this Court accepted the petitioner’s contention, held the orders of the District Judge to be without jurisdiction, and quashed them. 5. The present review petition has, therefore, been filed seeking issuance of an appropriate consequential direction for redeposit of the aforesaid amount before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)– Commercial Court, Sambalpur. It is submitted that once this Court held the orders of the District Judge to be without jurisdiction, the withdrawal of the amount on the strength of those orders could not legally be sustained, and the omission to issue a direction for redeposit constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS: 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (a) The petitioner seeks review and clarification of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17320 of 2023, inasmuch as although this Court set aside the orders dated 19.05.2022, 25.08.2022 and 06.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in Execution Case No. 28 of 2011, it did not issue a consequential direction for refund of ₹5,00,000/-, which had been withdrawn by the opposite party pursuant to those very orders. It is submitted that issuance of such a direction was a necessary corollary to the quashing of the impugned orders and ought to have been made
Decision
while disposing of the writ petition. (b) It is submitted that the petitioner had deposited the amount of ₹5,00,000/- pursuant to the orders of the learned District Judge, and the opposite party withdrew the same solely under the authority of those orders. Once those orders were held to be without jurisdiction, the withdrawal of the amount cannot legally stand. However, the operative portion of the judgment dated 16.05.2025 omitted to direct redeposit of the amount before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)–Commercial Court, Sambalpur, which omission has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. (c) Learned counsel submits that the omission to issue such consequential direction constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, particularly as the Civil Judge (Senior Division)–Commercial Court, Sambalpur is already proceeding with the execution in view of the petition dated 20.05.2025 filed by the opposite party. Unless the Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 omission is rectified, it will result in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice. (d) It is further submitted that the petitioner has substantial merit in Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2025 filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has already been admitted by order dated 02.05.2025 and is likely to result in remand of the Section 34 petition to the Civil Judge (Senior Division)– Commercial Court, Sambalpur for adjudication on merits. In such circumstances, unless the amount of ₹5,00,000/- is directed to be redeposited at this stage, the petitioner will be compelled to undertake further proceedings for recovery, leading to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and delay in execution of any eventual favorable outcome. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (a) It is submitted that while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 17320 of 2023, this Court was fully conscious of the fact that both the Section 34 proceeding and Execution Case No. 28 of 2011 stood transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division)–Commercial Court, Sambalpur, which alone is now required to adjudicate the matter on merits. Hence, the judgment dated 16.05.2025 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting review. (b) The Opposite Party contends that the petitioner has not satisfied any of the grounds prescribed under Section 114 read with Order Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 XLVII Rule 1 CPC. There is no discovery of new or important matter, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason to justify review. It is emphasized that the power of review is not analogous to an appeal, and unless the statutory requirements are met, the review petition must fail. (c) It is further submitted that no error apparent on the face of the record exists, as an error must be self-evident on a mere perusal and must not require any elaborate process of reasoning. (d) The Opposite Party also draws attention to subsequent developments. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Civil Judge (Senior Division)–Commercial Court, Sambalpur dismissed the Section 34 petition in ARBP No. 02 of 2023 by judgment dated 31.12.2024, and the Commercial Appellate Court dismissed the Bank’s appeal in ARBA No. 01 of 2025 by judgment dated 21.07.2025. Although the petitioner claims to have preferred a CMP challenging the appellate order, no notice has been received by the Opposite Party. In view of the dismissal of the proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the claim for redeposit of the withdrawn amount is stated to be untenable. (e) It is submitted that the Opposite Party is pursuing Execution Case No. 28 of 2011 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)–Commercial Court, Sambalpur, but the proceeding is presently under stay due to the pendency of this review petition. Unless the stay is vacated, the Opposite Party, being the decree-holder, will be deprived of the fruits of the decree. Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (f) It is acknowledged that while receiving the amount of ₹5,00,000/-, the Opposite Party had executed an indemnity bond dated 12.09.2022 undertaking to refund the amount along with costs in the event the award is set aside. The Opposite Party further undertakes to deposit the said amount with simple interest if the award is set aside in any proceeding that may be preferred by the Bank. (g) The Opposite Party therefore humbly prays that the review petition be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability as well as on merits, and that the interim order be vacated to enable continuation of the execution proceedings in view of the dismissal of Arbitration Appeal No. 01 of 2025. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 8. 9. I have considered the pleadings on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled that a review is not an appeal in disguise. The parameters for invoking review jurisdiction are narrowly circumscribed. Unless there exists a patent error apparent on the face of the record or the judgment under review causes a manifest miscarriage of justice, interference in review is impermissible. Mere disagreement with the reasoning of the Court or the possibility of an alternative view is not sufficient ground for review. 10. The Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P1, observed the following: 1 (1964) 5 SCR 174. Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.” 11. Similarly, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court observed as replicated hereinbelow: “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review...” 12. The principal contention of the petitioner is that, since this Court, by judgment dated 16.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 17320 of 2023, quashed the orders of the learned District Judge, Sambalpur on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a consequential direction for redeposit of the sum of ₹5,00,000/– withdrawn under those orders ought to have been issued as a natural corollary. It is urged that the 2 (2000) 6 SCC 224. Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 omission to record such a direction constitutes an “error apparent on the face of the record.” 13. Before examining this contention, it is necessary to note that the writ petition was confined to the limited question of jurisdiction, namely, whether the learned District Judge could entertain Execution Case No. 28 of 2011 in view of the mandate of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This Court examined that jurisdictional issue alone and, having found that the learned District Judge did not possess jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, set aside the impugned orders and directed the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court. The writ Court did not adjudicate upon the correctness of the withdrawal, nor upon the entitlement of either party to the amount withdrawn. In this context, the absence of a restitution direction cannot be presumed to be an inadvertent omission. 14. Furthermore, whether restitution should follow the quashing of an order is not a mechanical consequence. The grant of restitution requires examination of the nature of the withdrawal, the pendency of arbitral challenge, the equities between the parties, and the stage of the proceedings before the competent executing court. An issue that requires such evaluative consideration cannot be regarded as a patent or self-evident error. An omission that must be detected by a process of reasoning does not fall within the ambit of “error apparent.” Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 15. The petitioner’s contention must also be tested against the developments subsequent to the writ judgment. After transfer of the proceedings to the Commercial Court, the petitioner’s challenge to the arbitral award has been rejected both under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As a consequence, the award presently stands affirmed. The effect of this affirmation is that the opposite party has, at present, a lawful entitlement to the amount payable under the award. In such circumstances, directing redeposit at this belated stage would require the opposite party to return a sum which, pursuant to the present legal position, he is entitled to retain. Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to grant a relief inconsistent with the current adjudicatory status of the dispute. 16. It is also relevant that at the time of withdrawal, the opposite party executed an indemnity bond dated 12.09.2022, undertaking to refund the amount with applicable costs if the award were ultimately set aside. The opposite party has reiterated before this Court that it shall abide by the said undertaking. Thus, the petitioner’s interests remain adequately safeguarded, and any claim for restitution may be pursued, if warranted, in the event the petitioner succeeds in the pending CMP or any subsequent proceeding. 17. The omission to record a direction for redeposit cannot, therefore, be characterised as a patent error apparent on the face of the record. Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 It is neither clerical nor self-evident. Accepting the petitioner’s plea would require this Court to revisit the scope of the writ relief, examine matters not adjudicated therein, and mould the relief in a manner at odds with subsequent statutory findings. Such an exercise lies clearly beyond the confines of review jurisdiction. 18. It is no doubt true that, as a general principle, when an order is set aside, restitution should ordinarily follow. However, restitution is an equitable and consequential remedy, and its application depends upon the circumstances prevailing at the time the Court is called upon to act. In the present case, the affirmation of the award under Sections 34 and 37 and the subsistence of the indemnity bond executed by the opposite party make it neither necessary nor appropriate to direct redeposit in review proceedings. V. CONCLUSION: 19. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded that any ground is made out for interference in review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order passed in the present proceeding stands vacated. 20. It is, however, clarified that the indemnity bond dated 12.09.2022 executed by the opposite party shall continue to operate, and in the event the petitioner succeeds in the pending CMP or in any further proceeding resulting in setting aside of the award, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek restitution before the competent court, Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 which shall consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th Nov. 2025/ Page 11 of 11