Zille Kibria vs INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) on 28 January 2026

ORDER

This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 02.05.2022 passed in the SA 142/2020 by this Tribunal. During pendency of review application, the applicant filed IA 404/2022 to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the civil proceeding by preferring a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicants that the applicant under bonafide belief has assailed the

2. \4v

DRT,PATNA RA 16 of 2022 [OI order dated 02.05.2022 be preferring writ petition bearing CWJC No. 10085 of 2022 and since the Hon’ble High Court has granted liberty by order dated 25.07.2022 to avail alternative remedy, which may be available in eye of law, the applicant under such circumstances has filed present RA on 25.08.2022 and therefore, this petition is well within the prescribed under the Act. The copy of order of Hon’ble High Court was uploaded on 27.07.2022.

4. It is further submitted by the Id. Counsel for applicant that during the course of argument the respondent bank with a view to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal stated at bar that the property has been auction sold for Rs.86 lakh, as a result of which this Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the SA 142/2020 holding that the property has been sold for Rs.86 lakh and there is no plea that the property in question has been sold for a considerably low price as against market value, which finding is contrary to the pleading of the respondent bank and against the actual amount on which the property has been sold for Rs.29.86 lakh. Therefore, the same is patent mistake and error apparent on the face of record. The respondent bank has not given the details of the purchaser including his parentage and address, so as to implead him as a party respondent in the SA and secondly the details of payment, which was required to disclose with a view to verify the compliance of Rule 9(3) and (4) of the Rule and therefore no finding has been recorded regarding statutory compliance. In terms and conditions of the sale notice, the mode of payment was clearly prescribed as payment either through bank Cheque or draft or electronic mode and there was no direction for payment by cash and thus any amount, which has been accepted by the bank in cash, is not valid tender 4\I

DRT,PATNA RA 16 of 2022 IOI The sale notice dated 08.11.2019 was received by the applicant on 14.11.2019 as evident from Tracking Id No.EF4180152191N. Thus no clear 30 days between the date of service of individual notice and date of auction held on 11.12.2019. The composite sale notice was published in Indian Express dated 10.11.2019. Sale notice was not affixed on the secured asset. The respondent bank in reply to the SA in paragraph no.5 had stated that property had been sold for Rs.29.86 lacs and in support thereof enclosed the schedule of payment dated 11.04.2022 from which it is manifest that Rs.5 lacs was deposited in cash on 12.12.2019, Rs.7 lacs was deposited in cash on 26.12.2019, Rs.4.86 lacs was deposited in cash on 26.12.2019 and Rs.1500/- was also deposited in cash on 26.12.2019. It appears that the cash payment was subsequently deposited after the prescribed date

5. Although the respondent Bank appeared in the matter through his counsel but did not file its reply.

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

7. Present application is purported under rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [Procedures] Rules 1993. The rule 5-A reads as under- “[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. [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. /d\)

DRT,PATNA RA 16 of 2022 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.”

8. It is pertinent to note that before us, Rule 5A of the DRT Rules. Rule 5A gives a leeway to the DRT to entertain an application for review, only if, it is filed latest, by the thirtieth day from the date of the order of which review is sought. There is in sub rule (2) of Rule 5A, an express bar imposed on the DRT in entertaining review applications after the expiry of thirty (30) days. The RDB and the Rules made thereunder, being a special statute prescribes its own period of limitation, leaving no scope for entertaining applications for review beyond the stated period. There is, therefore, possibly no scope even for entertaining an application for condonation of delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short Limitation Act). The language of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5A appears to make this abundantly clear by providing: '’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."

9. In the present case, the Review Application has been filed after a lapse of more than 03 months. Apart from this impugned order has also not been annexed the application.

10. In the present matter the applicant stated that after disposal of SA 142/2020, approached Hon'ble High Court of Patna by filing CWJC 10085/2022 which was disposed of on 25.07.2022 and present RA has been filed on 24.08.2022. The applicant is entitled to exemption of the time during writ petition under section 14 of the Limitation %\

DRT,PATNA RA 16 of 2022 IOI Act. which runs as under- Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.–(1) in computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

11. In view of the above provision the benefit of Section14 can only be given if the applicant was prosecuting in another civil proceeding in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision. But admittedly this is not the case of the applicant. Hon’ble high court under the writ jurisdiction could record finding on all the questions involved as such it cannot be said that there was a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it, in the petition before High court.

12. In view of the above circumstances, the application to condone the delay deserves to be dismissed.

13. In addition to the above, otherwise this review petition is mainly on the ground of non-appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence. It is a settled position of law that the phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record” can’t be construed as de novo re- appreciation of facts and evidence.

14. In my opinion the grounds as mentioned in the Review petition, relate to appreciation of facts, evidence and the law. The scope of enquiry under the review application is not extended to revisit or de a\\

DRT,PATNA RA 16 of 2022 IOI novo appraisal of evidence. Neither this application discloses any arithmetical, clerical, any other error apparent on the face of record which could lead injustice to the applicant, nor has it been pointed out during the course of arguments. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed accordingly. In view of the above discussion, the Review petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly along with all pending IAs. Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 28TH Day of January, 2026. Dictated & corrected by me. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna