MS BHAGAT MOTORS INDIA PVT LTD AND OTHERS vs CANARA BANK on 16 July 2025

ORDER

This Review Application u/r SA of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedures) Rules, 1993 has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in the SA 34/2020 by this Tribunal. Alongwith present RA, the applicant has also filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 665/2024 to condone the delay in filing review application.

2. On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicants that the order dated 03.10.2023 was passedin SA34/2020 and the true and free copy whereof was delivered to applicant on

DRT,PATNA RA 14 of 2024 [0] 19.10.2023. Aggrieved from the order, the applicant hasapproached to Hon'ble High Court of Patna by filing CWJCNo. 1833 of 2024 on 21.12.2023 and the same was disposed of on 30.09.2024 but the copy of order was uploaded on 03.10.2024 on the portal of Hon'ble High Court wherein the applicants have been relegated to this DRT for filing present review application. Accordingly, RA has been filed on 07.11.2024. The applicant prays for exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide before Hon'ble High Court from computing the period of limitation. The true and free copy of order dated 03.10.2023 passed in SA 34/2020 was delivered on 19.10.2023 hence, the period may also be excluded from computing the limitation. It isfurther submitted that the applicant nO.3is mother of applicant no.2, a third stage cancer patient and undergoing treatment for her disease at PGI,Lucknow therefore, the applicant could not approach the Hon'ble High Court soon after 19.10.2023. During the period from 24.09.2024to 06.10.2024 the applicant no. 2 & 3 was in Lucknow for the treatment of applicant nO.3and reached Munger on 07.10.2024. In the meantime Puja Vacation has been declared in Hon'ble High Court therefore, on the reopening of the High Court on 17.10.2024,the applicants could get the certified copy of order passedby Hon'ble HighCourt and present RAhas beenfiled. Consideringthe circumstances,limitation may be condoned.

3. It is further submitted by the Id. Counsel for applicant that the SA 34/2020 was allowed vide order dated 03.10.2023 setting aside the auction held on 31.01.2020. However, the following irreconcilable facts, on account of inadvertent mistake/error on the face of record have been discovered which is required to be reviewed. It is further submitted that in Para- 2 of the order dated 03.10.2023 it has been indicated that the applicants have availed Term Loanand CashCredit ~/ ,1.0'

DRT,PATNA RA 14 of 2024 (0) facility to the tune of Rs.140lacsfrom the respondent Bankwhich is not correct. The applicants have only Rs.59 lacs under Term Loan facility and no working capital was disbursed to applicants. Further, in Para- 7 it has been held that different NPAdates to different loan accounts on the basisof default. This finding flies in the face of IRAC Norms and RBIguidelines in that classification as NPA is borrower wise and not account wise. In para - 8 it has been stated that "the possessionnotice dated 08.02.2017 was not served". When there is infirmity in delivery of possessionnotice as per Rule8(1) of the Rules, which is mandatory, the possessionnotice deserved to have been set aside but it has not been done so. Further, in Para- 11, there is no mention about the valuation of the properties as the District Registrar Office, Munger way back in the year 2018 itself therefore finding of valuation needs a relook and rectification. Further finding in Para- 18 that there is no casefor compensation to the applicants as the possessionhas already been restored. This finding is beyond the record & error on record. The fact is that the restoration was directed by DRTby an order dated 31.12.2021 passedin IA 403/2021 and the subsequent filing of appeal at DRATAllahabad against that order at DRATby the Bank these facts cream that no possessionwas restored and the said order was not complied with. This finding also needs to be reviewed, rectified and the Bank may be directed to restore the possession.

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

5. Considered the contentions of the applicant and perused the case ~/ ~\7\ \ records.

DRT.PATNA RA 14 of 2024 [OJ

6. The present ReviewApplication hasbeenfiled wherein the address of the registered office of the applicant No.1 has not been mentioned. Assuchthe applicantgoeswithout disclosingits identity.

7. Present application is purported under rule S-A of the Debts RecoveryTribunal [Procedures]Rules1993. The rule S-A reads as under- "[1] Any party consideringitself aggrievedby an order made by the Tribunal on accountof some mistake or error apparent on the face of the recordsdesiresto obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which hadmadethe 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 unlessit is accompaniedby an affidavit verifying the application.

Where it appearsto the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shallreject the application [but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application] for review shall be granted, it shallgrant the same."

8. It is pertinent to note that before us, RuleSAof the DRTRules.Rule SAgivesa leewayto the DRTto entertain an applicationfor review, only if, it isfiled latest,bythe thirtieth dayfrom the dateof the order of which reviewis sought. There is in sub rule (2) of Rule SA, an expressbar imposedon the DRTin entertaining reviewapplications after the expiry of thirty (30) days. The ROBand the Rulesmade thereunder, being a special statute prescribes its own period of limitation, leaving no scope for entertaining applications for reviewbeyondthe stated period.There is,therefore, possiblyno scopeeven for entertaining an applicationfor condonationof delay by invokingSectionSof the LimitationAct, 1963(in short Limitation

DRT,PATNA RA 14 of 2024 [OJ Act). The language of Sub Rule (2) of Rule SA 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."

9. In the present case, the Review Applicatlon has been filed after a lapse of more than 11 months.

10. In the present matter the applicant stated that after disposal of SA 34/2020, approached Hon'ble High Court of Patna by filing CWJC 1833/2024 which was disposed of on 30.09.2024 and present RA has been filed on 07.11.2024.

11. The applicant is entitled to exemption of the time during writ petition under section 14 of the Limitation Act. which runs as under- Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.-(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

12. In view of the above provision the benefit of Section14 can only be given if the applicant was prosecuting in another civil proceedings in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision. But admittedly this is not the case of the applicant. The writ jurisdiction is not covered under the above provision.

13. The applicants have further stated that one of the applicants is ~/ \10

DRT.PATNA RA 14 of 2024 [OJ suffering from Cancer and taking treatment from PGI, Lucknow supported with medical prescription. Therefore, could not obtain the certified copy of order of Hon'ble Court within time resultantly the RAhas been filed with delay period. But no evidence has been filed in this regard.

14. In view of the above circumstances,the application to condone the delay deservesto be dismissed.

15. In addition to the above, otherwise alsothis review petition is mainly on the ground of non-appreciation of the pleadings, facts and evidence. It is a settled position of law that the phrase "mistake or error apparent on the face of record" can't be construed as de novo re-appreciation of facts and evidence.

16. 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 which could lead injustice to the applicant, nor it has been pointed out during the course of arguments. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissedaccordingly. In view of the above discussion,the Reviewpetition has no merits and is dismissedaccordinglyalong with all pending lAs. Order signed, sealed,dated and pronounced in the open court on this 16TH Dayof July,2025. Dictated & corrected by me. [Kaushalendra Yadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna