Dismissed

Ram Kumar v. Union Bank of India

DRT28 Jan 2026RA/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a review filed by an auction purchaser challenging an order requiring return of possession. The Tribunal held the application sought de novo reconsideration of facts and evidence rather than addressing errors apparent on the record.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed as it sought reappraisal of facts and evidence not permissible under Rule 5-A.

Ram Kumar versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

RA 09 of 2025 IOI

DRT.PATNA

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

R. A. Case No. 09 of 2025

¶7

[Arising out of SA Case no. : 264 of 20191

¶8

Ram Kumar, S/o Late Ramanand Prasad, (original respondent no 1 of SA/264/2019), C/o Magdh Mahila Gyan Ankur, New Godwon, Gaya, Bihar – 823 001. (Auction Purchaser).

¶9

,..... Applicant

¶10

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Raja Bazar Branch, Maa Complex, lst Floor, Ashiana Digha Road.

¶12

Poonam Ray, D/o Yogendra Ray, R/o Daudbigha, Bhootnath Road. Kankarbagh. Patna – 26, Proprietor of M/s Patna Kirana Store.

¶13

Yogendra Ray, R/o Daudbigha, Bhootnath Road. Kankarbagh, Patna – 26 (Guarantor/Mortgagor).

¶14

.. . Respondents

¶15

Present :

¶16

For the Applicant In person For the Respondent Bank Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 & 3 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate

¶17

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Review Application has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 26.12.2024 passed in the SA 264/2019 by this Tribunal.

¶20

It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of the applicant that the applicant is having a copy of valuation report of the auction property. He also has photo of affixation of sale notice which was affixed on secured asset, as well as having paper publication of sale notice which was published in Hindustan and Hindustan Times on 17.10.2018. Apart from the above the applicant has documentary evidence and details of payment made for the e-auctioned property and also a statement of account showing the deposit of auction amount made in only 08 days. I have purchased

/W'

RA 09 of 2025 IOI

DRT,PATN A

the property from borrowing the loan from my relative for which I am paying interest till now but not enjoyed the property. Hence it is prayed that the judgment/order dated 26.12.2024 passed in SA 264/2019 may kindly be reviewed and modified to the extent that the bank may not be directed to take back possession of the property from the auction purchaser.

¶26

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent no. 2 & 3 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.

¶27

Although the notice was served upon respondent no. 1, bank but the respondent bank neither appeared nor filed a reply in the matter.

¶28

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

¶29

7 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-

¶30

“[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.

¶31

[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.

VJ„

DRT,PATN A

RA 09 of 2025 IOI

[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."

¶37

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 re appreciation of facts and evidence.

¶38

No reason has been explained why the documents were not brought on the record at the time of final hearing.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28TH Day of January, 2026.

¶43

Dictated & corrected by me.

¶44

¶45

[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Ram Kumar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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