MARTIN K A vs UCO BANK on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

1. RA No. 3/2019 in SA No. 259/2018:- This review application is filed by the petitioner/ applicant praying to review the final order dated 25.03.2019 passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 259/2018.

2. The review petitioner is the applicant in SA No. 259/2018 filed against the respondent herein praying to declare that Annexure-A5 possession notice is illegal and for other incidental reliefs. This Tribunal after having heard both sides counsels and having perused the pleadings and documents presented by both the parties, passed order dated 25.09.2019, dismissing the above SA. The review petitioner having aggrieved against the above order has filed this review petition seeking for the relief stated supra.

3. In this review petition in paragraph 2 to 6, the petitioner has referred to the findings and observations of this Tribunal made in the above final order and has averred that the aforesaid findings and observations are error on the apparent face of the record. Therefore, the submissions of the counsel for the review petitioner is that the above final order dated 25.03.2019 has to be reviewed.

4. The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the final order dated 25.03.2019 and that after passing of the final order, the review petitioner filed OP (DRT) No. 55/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and that the same was dismissed directing the petitioner to approach the DRAT to workout his remedy and that instead of filing the appeal, the review petitioner has filed this review petition. The very same review petitioner filed SA No. 130/2019 for the same relief and the same is pending before this Tribunal and that after disposal of SA No. 259/2019 original owner of the secured asset filed SA No.151/2019 before this Tribunal and that the said SA is pending before this Tribunal. The contentions raised by the review petitioner in the review petition is one and the same which has been taken in the above SAs and that the review petition is not at all maintainable and that therefore it is liable to be dismissed. In support of the above submissions, he relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :

(i) In Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra MANU/SC/0220/2019, it is held as follows: “an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error must be self-evident. Tested on this parameter, the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct. The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in appeal over the earlier decision dated 17.02.2017. Even assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper remedy at all. In our view, the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside the earlier view dated 17.02.2017.”

(ii) In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Ors. MANU/SC/0810/2013, it is held as follows: “14. Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to re-open concluded adjudications. This Court, in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/8226/2006 : (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under:

11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.

12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of "second innings" which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.

15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles:

16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the Petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki MANU/PR/0006/1922 : AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. MANU/SC/0003/1954 : (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0417/2013 : JT 2013 (8) SC 275. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

5. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgments, this petition to review the final order dated 25.03.2019 is not at all maintainable, since there is no error apparent on the face on the record of the above final order. The averments narrated in this review petition are akin to the grounds of memorandum of appeal which ought to have been filed against the above final order before the appellate forum. Though, the direction was given by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP (DRT) No. 55/2019, the review petitioner instead of complying with the above direction has filed this petition before this Tribunal. Further, the filing of SA

Nos.130/2019 and 151/2019 before this Tribunal raising the same contentions which had been taken in SA No.259/2019 is wantonly and willfully suppressed by the review petitioner in this review petition. Hence, it is evident that the review petitioner has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and that filing of this review petition amounts to abuse of process of this Tribunal.

6. In view of the foregoing reasons, this review petition which lacks of merits is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this RA No. 3/2019 stands dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of September, 2026.

[Su. WILLYAHM]

PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/