INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs M S IT JUNCTION AND ORS on 18 July 2025

Order Sheet Case No. RA 1 of 2025 (TA 37 of 2014) INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK –VS- M/S. IT JUNCTION AND ORS. Date of the Order necessary 18.07.202

Ld. Advocate Mr. Onkar Ganguly appeared for the Review Applicant (Indian Overseas Bank). Ld. Advocate Mr. Dhiman Roy, Mr. Prasenjit Debnath and Mr. Dip Chanda appeared for the Respondents. Review Applicant has filed review application for review of order dated 13.12.2024. The review applicant is Indian Overseas Bank who filed IA 2137 of 2024 for recalling of order dated 7.8.2024. It is contended by the Review Applicant that copy of MA 6 of 2024 has not been served upon the Bank and the respondent bank was not present due to mis-communication and mis-posting of diary. Applicant Bank did not appear at the time of hearing of IA/1578/2024. In absence of the Applicant Bank, order dated 07/08/2024 was passed. Application for condonation of delay was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 05/02/2024 and Registry was directed to register the MA and for issuance of notice. The reasons pleaded in the MA for setting aside the judgment dated 30/08/2023 are sufficient. MA/6/2024 was allowed. Judgment in TA dated 30/08/2023 and RC/59/2023 dated 14/09/2024 are set aside. The TA/37/2014 is restored to the stage just prior to defendant no. 3 set exparte. The Applicant Bank has filed IA 2137 of 2024 for recall of order dated 7.8.2024. Defendant no. 3 has filed objection and this Tribunal vide order dated 13/12/2024 dismissed IA/2137/2024. Learned counsel for the OP objected to the prayer in the

Date of the Order necessary review application and submitted that the bank was aware of the order dated 07.08.2024 and also submitted that if there is any mistake in the order dated 13.12.2024 for which review application can be entertained. The said order may be challenged in appeal and relied upon authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. –vs- Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., reported in 2005(29) AIC 401. Rule 5A Of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, provides as follows: “(i) 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 record 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. “ Learned counsel for the OP has relied authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. –vs- Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., reported in 2005(29) AIC 401. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 91 held in respect of Order 47, Rule 1 referred to own judgment in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another Vs. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others [(1955) 1 SCR 520], this Court made observations as regard limitations in the application of review of its order stating : "Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasise that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XLVII, rule 1 of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a

Date of the Order necessary limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule.", but the said rule is not universal.” In the above case scope of review is very limited only for mistake on the face of the record. Under the RDB,1993 and its rules scope of review is limited for mistake apparent on the face of the record. There are three grounds for review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code and is interpreted in the reported cases. Order dated 13/12/2024 was passed after hearing from both sides. It is a contested order. Ld. Advocate for the Bank has not brought out any mistake which appear on the face of the order dated 13/12/2024. IA/2137/2024 has been dismissed with observation that applicant may challenge the order in Appeal. Therefore, the RA has no merit. RA is dismissed on contest against the OPs. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer