Dismissed

Union Bank of India v. Poonam Ray

DRT28 Jan 2026RA/10/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant bank's review application. The court held that the application sought a de novo appreciation of facts and evidence, which is beyond the scope of Rule 5-A of the DRT Procedures Rules.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed as it lacks merit and discloses no error apparent on the face of the record.

Union Bank of India versus Poonam Ray — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

RA 10 of 2025 IOI

DRT,PATNA

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

R. A. Case No. 10 of 2025

¶7

[Arising out of SA Case no. : 264 of 2019]

¶8

Union Bank of India through its Authorised Signatory, Raja Bazar Branch, Ashiana Digha Road, Patna – 800014.

¶9

.. Applicant

¶10

¶11

Poonam Ray, Daughter of Yogendra Ray, resident of Daudbigha. Bhootnath Road, Kankarbagh, Patna – 800020. proprietor of M/s Patna Kirana Store.

¶12

Yogendra Ray, resident of Daudbigha, Bhootnath Road, Kankarbagh, Patna – 800020. (Guarantor/Mortgagor).

¶13

Ram Kumar, son of Ramanand Prasad. C/o Magdh Mahila Gyan Ankur, New Godwon, C;aya, Bihar – 823 001. (Auction Purchaser).

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Present :

¶16

Forthe Applicant	:Sh.DeepakKumar,Advocate
Forthe Respondent No. 1 &2	:Sh.ArvindKumar,Advocate
FortheRespondentNo.3	: inperson

¶17

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 26.12.2024 passed in the SA 264/2019 by this Tribunal. 2. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant bank that the Ld. Tribunal vide order dated 26.12.2024 has sale has been set aside due to respondent bank failed to file documentary evidence of affixation and publication of sale notice. It has been further observed that no details or documents regarding valuation of the property and payment made against auction sale were put on record. It is to submit that the above

/#*\

RA 10 of 2025 IOI

DRT.PATNA

said documents were not brought on record due to the outbreak of Corona, the said documents were kept haphazardly and had not been traceable at that point of time. Further, on account of the merger process of Corporation Bank and Union Bank of India, files/records were being shifted from one place to another. The above said documents are being filed alongwith this Review Application as the Respondent Bank traced out the same for consideration of this Ld. Tribunal. The respondent bank hereby file the copies of Property Valuation Report, affixation of Sale Notice on the mortgaged property, copy of Paper Publication of Sale Notice in both Hindi & English, copy of payment made by auction purchaser and statement of payment by NEFT. The application bank has fully complied with the compliance of Rule 8(5) & 8(6) of the Rules and there are no irregularities conducted by the Bank Hence, the judgment/order dated 26.12.2024 passed in SA 264/2019 may kindly be reviewed and the SARFAESI Application may kindly be dismissed.

¶25

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent no. I & 2 submitted that present review application is not maintainable as the applicant bank prayed for amendment in the order dated 26.12.2024 which was the final order and there is alternative remedy i.e. Appeal. The respondent bank has not pointed out any clerical or arithmetical mistakes or mistake or error apparent on the face of the records. The applicant bank has failed to point out any valid grounds for review. The Presiding Officer, after due consideration of materials on record, has passed the impugned order which deserves no interference. The applicant is seeking reconsideration of the case at hand on merit in garb of the instant Review Application, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

¶26

Although the respondent no. 3 has appeared in person but no reply has been filed

%~~

RA 10 of 2025 IOI

DRT,PATN A

Considered the contentions of the applicant bank and perused the case records.

¶32

The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant under rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [Procedures] Rules 1993. The rule 5-A reads as under-

¶33

“[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 made the order.

¶34

[2] No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.

¶35

[3] Where it appears to 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."

¶36

This review petition is filed for reconsideration of the case on the merit and evidence which was not produced at the time of final hearing which is beyond the scope of inquiry under Rule 5A. The phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record” can’t be construed as de novo reappreciation of facts and evidence.

¶37

The submission that the required documents were not brought on record due to the outbreak of Corona, as the documents were kept haphazardly and had not been traceable at that point of time. Further, on account of the merger process of Corporation Bank and Union Bank of India, files/records were being shifted from one place to another.

¶38

10.The Case can be decided on the basis of facts and relevant evidence available on record. There appears no error apparent on the face of record. Points raised in this application are about reappraisal of fact and evidence. The error apparent on the face of record is not a matter of presumption. The relief or a ground not discussed in the judgment shall be treated as declined and pointless.

&~~

RA 10 of 2025 IOI

DRT,PATNA

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 has it been pointed out during the course of arguments.

¶44

As such this petition has no merits and is dismissed, accordingly.

¶45

Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on

¶46

this 28TH Day of January, 2026.

¶47

Dictated & corrected by me.

¶48

[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Union Bank of India v. Poonam Ray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Poonam Ray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh