MS JAI HIND WHOLE SALE CHICKEN SUPPLIERS vs ALLAHABAD BANK on 23 December 2020

**ORDER**

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th>Sl. No</th><th>Date of order.</th><th>Order with the signature.</th><th>Action (if any) taken on the order.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>23.12.20</td><td><p>The Respondent No.1 filed the present application for permission on the maintainability of M.A. No.60 of 2020 filed for review/recall of the order dated 13/03/2020.</p><p>In the instant application it is contended that the applicants have filed the instant miscellaneous application thereby seeking review/recall of the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in SA No. 387/2019. The order dated 13.03.2020 was passed by this Hon'ble Court on merits and has attained finality. Since the order is appealable, the said order cannot be challenged by filling a miscellaneous application. The suitable remedy to challenge the same is to file an appeal before the Hon'ble DRAT at Allahabad that too within the period of limitation. Since the applicants were not aggrieved by the said order, they have not preferred any appeal to challenge the same. Even otherwise there is no provision for review of any order by preferring a miscellaneous application. The remedy is to file a review application by paying the applicable court fees of 50%. The applicants with the intention to escape</p></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

*P. Rai* 2-3/12/2020

from payment of court fees prescribed for review of an order, have filed the instant miscellaneous application which cannot be entertained.

The review of any order can be done only to the extent of error apparent on the face of record, since the applicants have failed to demonstrate any error on the face of record i.e. in order dated 13.03.2020, the same cannot be entertained.

The applicants have filed the instant miscellaneous application praying to recall the order dated 13.03.2020 and to restore the SA No.387/2019 so that they can challenge the e-auction notice dated 17.09.2020. They have filed the instant miscellaneous application to escape from the payment of court fees to file a fresh securitization application to challenge the e-auction notice dated 17.09.2020. The instant miscellaneous application is not maintainable for that count alone. The remedy to challenge the fresh e-auction notice dated 17.09.2020 is to file a fresh securitization application by payment of applicable court fees. The instant miscellaneous application seeking the review of the order dated 13.03.2020 is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. The applicants have also filed an interim application along with the instant miscellaneous application seeking amendment in the securitization application No.387/2019, and have sought the amendment in the disposed off SA. There is no provision for amending the SA which is already disposed off on merits. Thus the instant miscellaneous application and the interim applications filed along with it are not tenable and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.

*P. Ravit*

The applicants have also filed on record as Annexure-A-2, the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MP No.2027/2020 and sought restoration of SA No. 387/2019 on that basis portraying the same to be applicable and binding in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court was on the different facts, which are distinguishable and has no applicability in the instant case.

Counsel for the applicants filed objection and contended that as the order under review, suffers from the mistake apparent on the face of record, despite challenging auction notice dated 05.07.2019 filed SA No. 387/2019 on 18.07.2019, within 45 days, dismissed the SA No.387/2019 as barred by limitation, which is a mistake apparent on the face of record, for that remedy of review is the appropriate remedy, this Hon'ble Tribunal under Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 read with section 22(e) of the RDB Act 1993, empowered to review its border.

There was apparent mistake on the face of record, in the order dated 13.03.2020, dismissed the entire SA as barred by limitation others are within the limitation, though some of the reliefs are barred by limitation, dismissing entire SA as barred by limitation, which is apparent mistake on the face of record.

By the order under review dated 13.03.2020, has firstly dismissed SA barred by limitation as a consequence of it dismissed all the amendment application which are based on subsequent event, which is a mistake apparent on the face or record, hence the order dated *Prajit*

13.03.2020 deserves to be reviewed. During the pendency of this review application, for the same property another auction notice was issued, which would also subject matter of SA 387/2019, accordingly amendment application of in SA 387/2019, was filed in order to avoid delay, which would be considered after the review of the order dated 13.03.2020. An identical order was passed in SA No. 152/2020 on 29.06.2020, in which while dismissing SA, this Hon'ble Tribunal has granted liberty for filing fresh SA for subsequent auction notice and rejected the application for amendment based on subsequent cause of action, as directed in the SA No. 387/2019, the said order dated 29.06.2020 was challenge in MP. No.2027/2020, the Hon'ble High Court in the M.P. No.2027/2020, pleased to set-aside, the order dated 29.06.2020, and allowed the amendment application and restored the SA No.152/2020, it submitted the order under review is an apparent mistake on record, therefore deserves to be reviewed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the application of the Respondent No.1.

This Tribunal vide order dated 13/03/2020 dismissed the SA being barred by limitation and given the liberty to file a fresh SA challenging the action of the Bank pursuant to auction notice dated 27.01.2020 and this Tribunal after going through the records and considering the submission of all the Counsels and the contentions raised by the parties, disposed of the SA on merits. There is no error apparent on

P. Prasad the face of the record. Hence review/recall of the order dated 13/03/2020 is a vague and nullity in the eye of law and hence MA No.-60/2020 filed by the applicants for review/recall of the order dated 13.03.2020 is not maintainable and accordingly the instant interim application on the question of maintainability of misc. application No.-60 of 2020 filed by the applicants is not allowed and the MA No.-60/2020 filed by the applicants for review/recall of the order dated 13/03/2020 is dismissed as not maintainable. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Since the main MA No.-60/2020 is dismissed along with the IA on maintainability, hence all the pending IAs/MAs are closed.

*P. Ravi Kiran* / 23/12/2020

**(P. Ravi Kiran)** **B. Com., M. L.** **Presiding Officer**

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in charge of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur(M.P.)