ANJANI KUMAR vs CANARA BANK on 28 January 2026

ORDER

1. This misc. An application has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in RA 05/2023 by this Tribunal.

2. It has been pleaded that the applicants are ready to settle the account by way of installment if the restructuring of account is being done by the bank.

3. It is further submitted that this Tribunal has failed to decide the entire issue on the facts and law. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the present applicant took the loan from the bank but the builder has given the building in the year 2019 instead of 2016 that is why the account turns in NPA. The applicants have given representation for restricting the loan account but the respondent bank failed to do so. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the possession of the 7@ \ \

DRT, PATN A

property was handed over in the year 2019 but neither the registry has been made nor the construction of flat as well as building was complete. The ex-parte judgment was passed completely ignoring the fact that there was a IA application was filed by the applicant for condonation of delay which was part of entire proceeding filed on 16.10.2013 and it was categorically pleaded that the applicant has no knowledge and there was delay due of Covid-19 and poor financial condition but this Tribunal has not considered the same..

4. On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submitted that the present application is not maintainable. The applicant had taken a Housing Loan of Rs.16.25 lacs from the respondent Bank and executed various agreements including guarantee agreement by mortgaged his property with the Bank at the time of sanction of loan. The loan amount was availed by the applicants but failed towards repayment as per terms of sanction and agreements. In order to recover the loan amount, the bank filed OA 153/2019 before this Tribunal on 19.02.2019 which was heard ex-parte and judgment was passed and Recovery Certificate was issued on 05.11.2019. Thereafter, the recovery proceedings were issued but the applicant has not chosen to appear either in Original Application proceeding or recovery proceeding. The applicant had chosen to file a Review Application bearing RA 05/2023 which was already dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.09.2024 and now present MA has been filed just to delay the recovery process of the Bank. Entire facts and grounds taken in the present MA have already been decided by this Tribunal review application. Therefore, the present MA is fit to be dismissed.

5. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. The present application is in the garb of miscellaneous application filed for review of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in review application bearing RA 05.2023. There is no such provision or rule to review the order passed in review application without even disclosing any ground for review, hence, fit to be dismissed. If the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed in review application, may approach proper forum/authority as per law. ,J,\~

DRT, PATNA

7. It is also important to be mentioned here that the Tribunal cannot insist on any party for compromise on the given terms. In view of the above discussion, this petition for review of the order passed in review application is not maintainable and is dismissed, accordingly. A copy of this order is given to the parties. The order signed, dated and pronounced in open court today. Consign the record. L)\@ al [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date : 28.01.2026