Sujit Kumar vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 8 September 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 03.08.2022 passed in the SA 152/2021 by this Tribunal.

2. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel for applicant that possession notice u/s 13(4) issued against the secured asset by the respondent bank was not in the format of Appendix IV of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent bank has not followed the Rule 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) and 8(6) of the act in the matter. Neither the

DRT,PATNA RA 13 of 2022 IOI respondent bank submitted/produced any evidence to prove the service of abovesaid notices upon applicant in his counter affidavit. The applicant had deposited Rs.6.47 lacs towards his loan account but the respondent bank did not whispered regarding the adjustment of said amount in his counter affidavit filed in SA. The respondent bank had seald the property after auction sale without taking physical possession of the property. The sale notice dated 14.07.2021 was published in the newspaper on 12.7.2021 i.e prior to issuance of sale notice fixing the date of auction sale on 12.08.2021. Hence, no 30 days period was granted to the applicant in the said sale notice. To prove the above contention the applicant had annexed the evidence alongwith his S. applicant but the same were not considered by this Court while deciding the SA

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

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

5. 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. [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.” A / \{M

DRT,PATNA RA 13 of 2022 IOI

6. This review petition is mainly on the ground of 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. The error apparent on the face of record is not a matter of presumption. The relief or a ground not discussed in the judgment shall be treated as declined and pointless. A case can be decided on the basis of facts and relevant evidence available on record, even if the arguments on behalf of the applicant were not there before the Presiding officer at the time of judgment. The arguments are neither statutory requirement nor sine qua non for the case. Furthermore, the alleged sale notice annexed with S. application neither indicates the name of the newspaper nor the date of its publication. 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, any other error apparent on the face of record, nor it has been pointed out during the course of arguments.

7.

8. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and dismissed accordingly along with all pending IAs. Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 08TH Day of September, 2026. Dictated & corrected by me. [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna