Ashok Kumar Gupta vs HDFC BANK on 22 June 2026

ORDER

This Review Application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 04.02.2023 passed in OA 132/2019 by this Tribunal.

1. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of the applicant that the applicant is guarantor to the loan account in question. The respondent bank filed a present OA for the recovery of its outstanding dues before this Tribunal but no notice was served upon the applicant. Therefore, the applicant could not appear before this Tribunal to defend his case. The notice was issued during the Covid period hence, the applicant was completely unaware with regard to proceeding pending before this Tribunal. The loan was taken by the respondent no.3 who is proprietor

DRT, PATN A RA 12 of 2023 IOI of respondent no.2. The applicant has given merely the guarantee to the loan being brother of respondent no.3.

2. Neither any respondent is present for respondents Nos.2&3 nor on any reply to the review application has been filed. On perusal of present case record, it appears that vide order dated 19.12.2025 Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal reported that even after many opportunities the applicant has neither filed a service report of notice upon respondent nor fresh steps have been taken for service upon respondents.

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

4. 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- “[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. [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.”

5. This present review petition has been filed for setting aside ex-parte judgment/order dated 04.02.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA 132/2019 with the contention that no notice was served/delivered to the applicants. No mistake or error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out in the application. The nature of the dispute as pointed out, could be raised by way of miscellaneous application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and the certificate, if any. It is not covered under the review application.

DRT, PATN A RA 12 of 2023 IOI

6. However, record of the original application shows that the summons was sent to the defendants/borrowers on 16-3-2019 by Registered/Speed post. Apart from this summons were also published in the newspaper “Indian Express" on 02.08.2019 and in the “Dainik Jagaran" on 03.08.2019 to appear and contest the case but none of the defendants appeared in the matter despite several opportunities. As it has not been alleged by the applicant that the address mentioned on the summons was not correct and the address mentioned in the original application has also not been denied by the applicant. The postal dispatch of the summons along with the copies shall be presumed to be served in due course as required under section 27 of the General clauses Act. Similar presumption has to be drawn regarding the true and free copy issued by the Tribunal after the judgment in the original application. Again it is important to mention that there is nothing on record to contradict the above presumption . Neither this application discloses any arithmetical, clerical error apparent on the face of record, nor has it been pointed out during the course of arguments. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and dismissed accordingly. As such this petition has no merits and is dismissed, accordingly.

7.

8. Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 22ND Day of June, 2026. Dictated & corrected by me. ,0 [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna