PAWAN KUMAR vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 7 September 2026

ORDER

1. This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been WAy the applicant to review "';’=,,H=“'"

DRT, PATN A RA 02 of 2023 IOI the judgment/order dated 08.12.2022 passed in the OA no. 104/2020 by this Tribunal.

2. It is submitted by the applicant that he is one of the guarantors to the loan account in question and made party as defendant no.4 in the Original Application 104/2020. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 & 3 herein had appeared in the OA and filed their Written Statement admitting the loan outstanding and brought the compromise on record. Due to sudden flood in the area, the entire godown and business of the borrower was affected therefore, the account was declared as NPA. The respondent bank vide notice dated 17.06.2019 made a demand of Rs.15,84,485/- + interest but just after 08 months the present OA has been filed to recover a sum of Rs.20,47,013.15. How such an amount has escalated in just 08 months. However, the borrower offered and paid an amount of Rs.16 lacs on 16.08.2021 to the Bank towards final settlement but the respondent bank instead of withdrawal of OA, persuaded the same and got a decree of Rs.20,47,013.15 vide judgment and certificate dated 08.12.2022 while the Bank vide letter dated 10.09.2021 himself admitted that by way of upfront amount the borrower has deposited Rs.16 lacs out of Rs.18 lacs as agreed by the Bank The applicant being guarantor to the loan account in question is ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.2 lacs as agreed by the Bank vide letter dated 10.09.2021. Hence, the order dated 08.12.2022 may be set aside and the bank may be directed to accept the same.

3. Ld. Counsel of the respondent bank submitted that applicant in his Review Application failed to identify any mistake or error in the judgment dated 08.12.2022 passed in OA 104/2020. The review applicant does not point out any typnogr?phical or neither C/.a d\v\ C

DRT, PATNA RA 02 of 2023 IOI arithmetical error or error on face of record. The ground cited in the application is that Written Statement filed by defendant has not been considered for which applicant may prefer an Appeal before Hon’ble DRAT. Hence, the review application may be dismissed.

4. Considered the contention of the parties and perused the case records.

5. 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- It[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.”

6. This review petition is mainly on the ground against non- appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence and the law which is beyond the scope of inquiry under Rule 5A. The phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record" can’t be construed as de novo re-appreciation of facts and evidence.

7. 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 novo appraisal of evidence. 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.

DRT, PATNA RA 02 of 2023 IOI Apart from this the applicant has also been negligent in the service of notice upon respondents as reported by the Ld. Registrar. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and dismissed accordingly Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 07TH Day of September2026. Dictated & corrected by me. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna