Shambhu Prasad Singh vs INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) on 7 September 2026

ORDER

This Review Application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to review/recall the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2023 passed in OA 347/2020 by this Tribunal.

DRT, PATN A

I' it is submitted bY the Id' Counsel of the applicant that th, ,ppli„„t h„ executed a registered mortgage lease Deed No. 16575 dated 19.11.2015 in favour of respondent no.2 for the period of 33 years w.e.f. 19.11.2015 and transferred leasehold right in favour of the respondent bank only for the purpose of securing the repayment of loan amount during the currency of lease or prior thereto in the event of its determination. During the period, the respondent no.2 defaulted in repayment of rent from November, 2017 and failed/neglected to pay the rent since thereafter hence, the applicant issued notice dated 04.01.2019 and 17.04.2019 directing the respondent no.2 to make payment or arrear of rent and also expressing the intention to determine/terminate the lease deed vide notice dated 17.04.2019. Further, vide notice dated 18.04.2019 it was informed to the respondent no.2 that the lease deed stands determined and terminated and directed to deliver peaceful possession of the land. The applicant has also filed an Eviction Suit bearing no.20/2021 before the Competent Civil Court at Samastipur seeking relief as declaration that the lessor has determined the lease for default in payment of rent and for violation of terms and conditions of lease deed. In the above said suit the respondent bank is also one of the parties. The respondent bank appeared in the matter through his counsel and contesting the said suit. In the OA 347/2020 the respondent bank has also clearly stated that the lease deed dated 21.12.2015 executed by the applicant as lessor in favor of respondent no.2 as lessee was determined and terminated for default in payment of rent and other terms & conditions. Despite this fact, the respondent bank chooses not to make the lessor a party in the OA before this Tribunal. The lessor was a necessary party as his property was a subject matter of adjudication

DRT. PATNA RA 08 of 2024 IOI resulting in causing grave injustice as an adverse order has been passed that the alleged mortgaged property is not to be alienated or transferred which has cast a clout on the title of the applicant. The order and judgment has been passed behind the back of the applicant and without affording opportunity to the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the judgment and order dated 04.02.2023 passed in OA 347 of 2020 may be reviewed and recalled. Although the respondent bank appeared in the matter through his counsel but failed to file any reply to the review application. Despite service of notices, the respondent no. 2 to 7 neither appeared nor filed any reply to the review application. On perusal of present case records, it is found that Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal vide order dated 25.07.2024 reported that “Notice sent to respondent no.6 is returned with postal remarks “"5mdqdt %r w Bt wr i, amV'. Ld. Registrar vide order dated 17.04.2025 it is further informed that the applicant is neither appearing in the matter nor filed any IA for substitution of legal heirs of deceased defendant no.6. Considered the contentions of the applicant bank and perused the case records. 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

2.

3.

4.

5. shall be granted, it rant the same." a/e {,, cpLq

DRT, PATN A RA 08 of 2024 IOI

7. This present review petition has been filed for review/recall the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2023 passed in OA 347/2020 by this Tribunal with the contention that the applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor to the loan account in question of OA 347/2020. The applicant is the lessor and the respondent no.2 was lessee to the property in question. The property of the applicant was under mortgage with the respondent bank. The applicant being a lessor was a necessary party but the applicant has not been made party in the aforesaid OA. Since the O.A is to declare the liability of the borrowers only. Any right of a third party is not to be adjudicated there-under. The nature of grievance or dispute raised on behalf of the present review applicant is beyond the realm of the section 19 of RDB Act. The any claim of the applicant and the mortgagor in the secured asset will be subject to adjudication of the competent court, where the applicant has already approached. As the applicant did not take necessary steps for service of notice to respondent No.6 in spite of the order of the registrar, this is an added ground for dismissal of the present application. As such this petition has no merits and is dismissed, accordingly.

8. Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 07TH Day of September, 2026 Dictated & corrected by me. ’;( VV ay’'"?~ [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna