Dismissed¶53

Udayanath Moharana v. Punjab and Sind Bank , Bhadrak

Orissa HC16 Oct 2025RVWPET/32/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack; RVWPET No.32 of 2025; review petition dismissed; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; review is not re-hearing; error apparent on the face of the record; mistake; new matter or evidence; due diligence; review not a matter of right; SARFAESI Act alternative remedy; liberty to approach DRT; Punjab and Sind Bank Bhadrak; auction sale notice dated 27.02.2024; writ petition not entertained; Bench S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash; order dated 16.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Review is not a re-hearing of the original matter; the power of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can only be invoked for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view; every error, whether factual or legal, cannot be made the subject-matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ¶28

Udayanath Moharana Vs Punjab and Sind Bank , Bhadrak — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.30454 of 2024 is liable to be recalled in review on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new matter or evidence, within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

¶17

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

To invoke the review jurisdiction, the concerned person must show either a new or important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or which could not be produced before the Court when the decree/order was made, or that the order was passed on account of some error apparent or mistake.

¶37

Key takeaways

Review of a decree/order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be sought as a matter of right.ratio¶39
The 'error' contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched; it must be an error of inadvertence (as held in Lily Thomas v. Union of India).ratio¶39
On going through the impugned order under review, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and no new matter or evidence which the review petitioner could not have produced before the Court below even after exercising due diligence; therefore the review petition was not entertained and stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (RVWPET No.32 of 2025) seeking recall of the order dated 09.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.30454 of 2024, whereby the Court had declined to entertain a writ challenge to the auction sale notice dated 27.02.2024 and the physical possession notice issued by the Authorized Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank, having regard to the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy (relying on M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, Hemraj Ratnakar Salian v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra), with liberty to approach the DRT. Reiterating that review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not a re-hearing of the original matter, cannot be exercised as an inherent power, and lies only for correction of a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record — not every factual or legal error — and requires new or important matter or evidence not producible despite due diligence (following Lily Thomas v. Union of India, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta), the Court found neither any error apparent on the face of the record nor any new matter or evidence, and dismissed the review petition along with any pending interim application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RVWPET No.32 of 2025

¶3

Udayanath Moharana

¶4

…..

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Chakradhari Singh, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Punjab and Sind Bank, Bhadrak

¶9

..... Opp.Party

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

ORDER

16.10.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶17

This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner, Udayanath Moharana, with a prayer to recall the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.30454 of 2024.

¶18

While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the following orders have been passed:

¶19

“Heard.

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the auction sale notice dated 27.02.2024 vide Annexure-1 passed by the Authorized Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank (opp. party no.2) and to

¶21

Page 1 of 8

¶22

declare the physical possession notice vide Annexure-2 as null and void and to cancel the auction.

¶23

Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. - Vrs.- Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported in 2023 LIveLaw (SC) 320 has deprecated the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, where efficacious alternative remedy has been prescribed in the statute Itself. The Hon'ble Court went on to hold as follows:

¶24

“16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative,"

¶27

In view of the settled position of law as held hereinabove so also in the case of Hemraj Ratnakar Salian -Vrs.- HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. Reported in (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 395 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 782 , since alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT by filing an appeal. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”

¶28

Be that as it may, law is well settled that review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can only be invoked for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. To appreciate the principles governing the power of review under the CPC in the correct perspective, it would be beneficial for us to reproduce the very provision, which reads as follows:

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

1. Application for review of judgment.— ( 1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

¶31

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been

¶32

preferred,

¶33

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶34

¶35

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

¶36

(Emphasis added)

¶37

From the terminology of the above provision, it is apparent that to invoke the review jurisdiction, the concerned person must show either a new or important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or the same could not be produced before the Court when the decree was made. The aforesaid jurisdiction can also be put to use when it is shown that the Court passed the

¶38

Page 4 of 8

¶39

impugned decree/order on account of some „error apparent‟ or „mistake‟. Review of a decree/order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be sought as a matter of right. The right to get a decree/order reviewed is subject to the condition that the aggrieved person shows any new matter or evidence, which was not within his knowledge even after exercising due diligence or if he points out any „error apparent‟ or „mistake‟. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas -Vrs.- Union of India reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224 held that the „error‟ contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record.

¶40

In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶41

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 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

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, it 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.”

¶44

In Haridas Das -Vrs.- Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶45

“13....The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the Rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which

¶46

Page 6 of 8

¶47

states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable, the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection....”

¶48

In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. -Vrs.Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶49

“21. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before

¶50

Page 7 of 8

¶51

the Court earlier.”

¶52

After going through the impugned order under review, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record nor do we find any new matter or evidence which the review petitioner could not have produced before the Court below even after exercising „due diligence‟. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this review petition.

¶53

Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Pending interim application, if any, also stands dismissed.

¶54

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶55

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶56

Judge

¶57

Pravakar

¶58

Signature Not Verified