Pinki Kumari and Pinki Devi vs INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) on 16 October 2026

ORDER

1. This Review Application u/r 5A of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the judgment/order dated 03.04.2025 passed in the OA no. 497/2023

DRT, PATN A RA 15 of 2025 IOI by this Tribunal. Alongwith Review Application, the applicant has also filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 599/2025.

2. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of the applicant that the applicant has not received the copy of the Judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed in 0.A. No. 497 of 2023 till the date. The applicant came to know about the Judgment by the respondent no. 2 when he received the notice issued by the Ld. Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. After getting knowledge from the respondent no.2, the applicant has applied for the certified copy of the Judgment and after receiving the same on 05.08.2025, she handed over the brief to her counsel for filing of the Review Application. Accordingly, the present Review Application has been filed on 16.08.2025. There is no deliberate latch on the part of the applicant.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent bank had filed original application vide O.A. No. 497 of 2023 with a prayer to issue a certificate against the defendants on the basis of documents executed in the year 2010, 2013 and 2016 but the applicant is not a guarantor/borrower in the housing loan sanctioned the year 2016 to the respondent no. 2 nor executed any documents in favour of Bank with regard to housing loan sanctioned in the year 2016 to the respondent no.2. The applicant had stood as a guarantor for one of the housing loans sanctioned in the year 2013 for Rs. 10.50 Lacs to the respondent no.2 and executed the documents in the year 2013. The two housing loan accounts sanctioned in the year 2013 to respondent no.2 have already been closed on 07.04.2016 which is evident from the statement of account annexed by the bank with O.A at page No. 127 and 128. Apart from this the respondent bank by

DRT. PATN A RA 15 of 2025 IOI letter dated 08.04.2016, already accepted the closure of two housing loan accounts which was sanctioned in the year 2013. The respondent bank has sanctioned a housing loan to the respondent no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 20.00 Lacs in the year 2016 vide sanction letter dated 31.03.2016 but the present review applicant is neither the borrower nor guarantor to the loan account sanctioned for Rs.20 lacs nor executed any documents. The respondent bank deliberately not brought the Loan Agreement in respect of housing loan sanctioned in the year 2016 while filing Original Application. The applicant has not signed any document as a guarantor in respect of housing loan sanctioned to the respondent no. 2 in the year 2016 which was the subject matter of the O.A. No. 497 of 2023. The earlier housing loan sanctioned in the year 2013 has already been closed. Hence, it is prayed that the Judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed in O.A. No. 497 of 2023 may be reviewed and the name of applicant may be expunged from the array of certificate debtors.

4. Ld. Counsel of the respondent bank submitted that applicant has failed to make out a case for Review Application as no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out.

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

6. 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 app [cation shall ;;dvb

DRT, PATNA RA 15 of 2025 IOI 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.”

7. It is pertinent to note that before us, Rule 5A of the DRT Rules. Rule 5A gives a leeway to the DRT to entertain an application for review, only if, it is filed latest, by the 30TH day from the date of the order of which review is sought. There is in sub rule (2) of Rule 5A, an express bar imposed on the DRT in entertaining review applications after the expiry of thirty (30) days. The RDB and the Rules made thereunder, being a special statute prescribes its own period of limitation, leaving no scope for entertaining applications for review beyond the stated period. There is, therefore, possibly no scope even for entertaining an application for condonation of delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short Limitation Act). The language of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5A appears to make this abundantly clear by providing: "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." In the present case, the Review Application has been filed after a lapse of more than 4 months. Otherwise also this review petition is mainly on the ground of non non-appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence and the law which is beyond the scope of inquiry under Rule SA. The phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record” can’t be construed as denovo re-appreciation of facts and evidence. From the allegations made in the review application it appears that the applicant wants re appreciation of the evidence after the jLLdgment

8.

9.

DRT. PATN A RA 15 of 2025 [OI dated 03.04.2025 passed in OA 497/2023. The review applicant does not point out any error apparent on the face of record as such re appreciation of the evidence is beyond the realm of Review.

10. 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. 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 16TH Day of October, 2026 Dictated & corrected by me. K, CM/’' [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna