Bank of Baroda vs M/s Pritesh Trading Co & Ors on 11 September 2025

**JUDGMENT**

1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking partly recall of order dated 13.09.2024 imposing cost upon the Applicant.

2. 2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank, who submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 13.09.2024 allowed withdrawal of Original Application No.825 of 2017 and dismissed the same as withdrawn in light of affidavit Ex.A/17 filed by the Applicant Bank. However, this Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.7,500/- upon the Bank on the ground that though the entire amount was paid by the borrowers on or about 03.08.2023, the withdrawal affidavit was filed with substantial delay on 13.09.2024. Relying on the Statement of Account produced at pg.6

with the present Miscellaneous Application, he further submitted that the account was fully and finally settled by way of OTS only on 13.03.2024 and not prior thereto. In spite of the same, this Tribunal passed the aforesaid order treating 03.08.2023 as the date of settlement of the account. From the statement of account, it becomes clear that the Applicant Bank filed withdrawal affidavit within 6 months of settlement of the account and there was no inordinate delay on the part of the Applicant Bank in filing the same. Hence, he prayed to partly withdraw and recall order dated 13.09.2024 to the extent of imposing cost upon the Applicant Bank.

1. 3. Considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and taking into consideration the Statement of Account produced by the Applicant, it becomes clear that the account was fully and finally settled by way of OTS on 13.03.2024 and the Applicant Bank filed withdrawal affidavit on 13.09.2024 vide Ex.A/17 in OA No.825 of 2017. Thus, it cannot be disputed that there is a delay of approximately six months on the part of the Applicant Bank in filing withdrawal affidavit before this Tribunal. Therefore, the order dated 13.09.2024 was passed by this Tribunal, imposing cost of Rs.7,500/- on the Applicant Bank, on account of belated action of the Applicant Bank in withdrawing OA No.825/2017. Accordingly, the said order cannot be treated as ^{passed by} any mistake or error apparent on the face of record.

1. 4. It is required to be noted that under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, there is no power of "Review" of order passed by DRT. However, Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provides for review powers in

case of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Rule 5A of DRT Procedure Rules reads as under:

"5A. Review.—

(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 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.*

(2) *No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of sixty 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:*

*Provided that no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party to enable him to appear and to be heard in support of the order, a review of which is applied for."*

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Applicant herein has failed to show any mistake or error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.825/2017 cannot be reviewed. Therefore, the present Miscellaneous Application is devoid of merits and it is required to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order:

4**ORDER**

The present Miscellaneous Application is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

File be consigned to records.

Pronounced in the Open Tribunal on 11^th September, 2025.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Nishita