RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA vs ICICI BANK LTD on 18 April 2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

Present: A.H. Khan, Presiding Officer

Dated of order 18.4.2024

R.A. No.03 of 2023

SL No.21

**Present:-**

<table border="1"><tr><td>Counsel for the applicants</td><td>Mr. Ritesh Goel</td></tr><tr><td>Counsel for the respondent-bank</td><td>Mr. Shyam Kumar Ray (appeared through Hybrid mode)</td></tr><tr><td>Counsel for the Auction Purchaser</td><td>Mr. S.M. Furquan</td></tr></table>

In this case, the Hon'ble DRAT Allahabad vide its order dated 18.7.2023, which was corrected on 22.9.2023 passed in Misc. Application No.48/2023 had directed this tribunal to decide the Review Application.

Counsel for the applicant filed this RA on 14.02.2023 against the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by this tribunal in S.A. No.472/2017. The applicants have stated that S.A. No.472/2017 was allowed by this tribunal vide its order dated 02.12.2022 for non-compliance of Rule 9(3) & 9(4) of S.I. Rules 2002, against which, the auction purchaser had filed an R.A.No.14/2022, which was allowed and the Securitization Application No.472/2017 was dismissed by this tribunal. The applicants have filed the instant R.A. to review the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by this tribunal in R.A. 14 of 2022.

Counsel for the respondent-bank and auction purchaser submits that the R.A is barred by limitation and raised objection on the maintainability of R.A as well. It is further submitted that the scope of review is very limited and the tribunal has no powers to review its own order on merits, provisions of filing appeal against the final order is provided in the Act itself but the applicants have bypass the said provision and had filed the present R.A against the final order of this tribunal which was passed on merits.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Koli Versus State of U.P. and others as reported in 2015(3) SCC(Cri) 592 held as under:-

A. Civil Procedure Code, Section 96 - Constitution of India, Article 137

- Scope of Review petition before Supreme Court - Held:- *(i) Scope of review petition under Article 137 Constitution is very limited and cannot be equated to that of an appeal - The review petitions can be allowed only on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered on the aforesaid ground unless the court is satisfied that a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. 2013(4) RCR (Crl.) 75: 2013(5) Recent Apex Judgment (RAJ) 62, relied [Para7].*

Duly considered the grounds taken in review application and gone through the final order dated 02.12.2022 passed by this tribunal and after giving my thoughtful consideration to the issues raised as discussed in forgoing para of this order I am of the considered opinion that grounds and averments so taken do not fall within the ambit and scope of review. It appears that review application has been filed by the applicants before this tribunal as an appeal against final order / judgment passed by this Tribunal and it is a settled proposition of law that a court cannot sit as appellate authority against its own judgment and in view of above referred judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court the applicant is not entitled to any relief in this case. The scope of review is limited and cannot be equated with appeal, if Act provides specific remedy of appeal, litigant cannot invoke provisions of review to challenge the findings given on merits. By filing this Review Application, the applicant may avail other efficacious remedy of appeal instead of filing this review application to assail the final order / judgment of this Tribunal which was passed on merits.

The review application is dismissed accordingly.

Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per Rules.

File be consigned to record room.

(A.H. Khan) Presiding Officer