This Review Application was dismissed as not legally maintainable. The Presiding Officer held that the grounds raised concerned the appreciation of evidence and facts, which falls outside the limited scope of Rule 5A review for errors apparent on the face of records.
The Review Application and all pending IAs were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
DRT.PATNA
RA 07 of 2023 [OJ
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
Presiding Officer: Shri Kausha[endraVadav
R.A. Case No. 07 of 2023 [Arisingout of SACaseno. : 15 of 2022)
Both Residents of : V.C. Lane Mithanpura. Ward No. 36. Post _ Ramna, District - Muzaffarpur 842002.
. Applicants
...Respondent
Present:
For the Applicants : Sh. Manish Kishore, Advocate For the Respondents : Sh. Prabhakar Nath Rai, Advocate
Dated: 30.12.2024
ORDER
This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the judgment/order dated 19.04.2023 passed in the SA no. 15/2022 by this Tribunal.
2
DRT,PATNA
RA 07 of 2023 [01
newspapers nor having any circulation. The property is not registered with CERSAIbut this Tribunal without discussing the submission of applicants pleased to dismiss the application vide judgment dated 19.04.2023 holding that objection regarding circulation of newspaper the applicant could not file the authoritative figure to prove the same. The Tribunal went to accept entire submissions of the respondent bank without any cogent evidence in respect of services of notices issued in the matter. The Morning India does not have circulation in the District Muzaffarpur. The Tribunal ought to have been asked to furnish the report in respect of circulation of newspapers in question and the place of publication from either side, Now, the authoritative figure regarding circulation of Newspapers namely Sanmarg and Morning India has been procured from the different websites of the agency concerned which are annexed with this application. Considering the above facts and circumstance, the impugned judgment dated 19.04.2023may be reviewed.
3
DRT.PATNA
RA 07 of 2023 [OJ
publication city for Morning lndia and Sanmarg is Patna it is not showing against Muzaffarpur city in the PTI report. Both the newspapers have wide circulation & are registered with the Govt body RNI (Office of the Registrar of Newspapersfor India). As per the PTI report of FY2021-22, Morning India has a circulation of 88880 copies and Sanmarg has 79741 copies in circulation across Bihar which includes cities like Patna, Muzaffarpur, Chapra, Gaya, Samastipur etc. The Bank has followed all the procedures as laid down in the SARFAESI Act. The applicants by filing the instant review application, failed to make out any case of review of impugned judgment. It further states that the applicants have failed to appreciate the settled principles and law for review of any order passed and have filed this review application on grounds which cannot be said to be valid grounds for review. Therefore the present Review application is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed.
"(1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had madethe order.
(2) No application for review shall be madeafter the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the orderand no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.
(3) Where it appearsto the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application [but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application) for review shall be granted, it shall grant the same." =:
4
DRT,PATNA
RA 07 of 2023 [OJ
5- This review petition is mainly on the ground of non-appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence and the law which is beyond the scopeof inquiry under Rule5A, The phrase "mistake or error apparent on the face of record" can't be construed as de novo re-appreciation of facts and evidence,
6- The error apparent on the face of record is not a matter of presumption, The relief or a ground not discussedin the judgment shall be treated as declined and pointless. Casecan be decided on the basis of facts and relevant evidence available on record, even if the arguments on behalf of the applicant were not there before the Presiding officer at the time of judgment. The arguments are neither statutory requirement nor sine qua non for the case.
7- In my opinion, the grounds as mentioned in the Review petition, relate to appreciation of new facts and new evidence that was not available at the time of judgment. The scope of enquiry under the review application is not extended to revisit or de novo appraisal of evidence. Neither this application discloses any arithmetical, clerical, any other error apparent on the face of record, nor it has been pointed out during the course of arguments.
As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and dismissedaccordingly along with all pending lAs.
Order signed, sealed,dated and pronounced in the open court on this 30th Dayof December,2024.
a,J/
c..-/" ~
N-'U/
(' >.Jv/ .'-z>"\ ~
'i _______gv
[Kaushalendra Yadav]
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
Dictated & corrected by me.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Review Application filed under Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedures) Rules, 1993 is maintainable on grounds involving appreciation of pleadings, facts, and evidence rather than mistake obvious on
Whether the submission regarding the circulation of newspapers in Muzaffarpur district, which was not raised in the original order, constitutes an error apparent on the face of record justifying a rev
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suman Kumar and Ors.
The Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd.
Kaushalendra Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
