SRI RAVINANDAN P vs CANARA BANK on 29 August 2025

**ORDER**

The petitioner filed Review Application (RA) 7/2024 on 24.08.2024 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' praying to set aside the final order dated 10.07.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA 1140/2019. The petitioner is none other than the defendant in the OA.

2. The case set out in the RA in brief is as follows:- The petitioner/defendant had filed an IA on the question of maintainability of the OA filed by the respondent/

Tandem Page applicant bank but the Tribunal by oversight passed final order in OA instead of order in IA. This petitioner could not adduce any evidence. Hence this review application is filed to reopen the case so as to lead evidence by this petitioner. The final order dated 10.07.2024 is not a speaking order.

3. The respondent/applicant bank filed a statement objection on 03.02.2025 contending as follows:- There is no apparent error on the face of the records. The grounds urged in the review application are the grounds for appeal and the same is not permissible for review.

4. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner/defendant is entitled to the relief prayed for?

5. The Point:- R.5A of the Rules deals with review of an order passed by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records, and it reads as below:- *"(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 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.*

*(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 should be granted, 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."*

6. The respondent/applicant bank on 29.08.2019 filed OA 1140/2019 before this Tribunal under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) - for short 'the Act' - for recovery of the sum of ₹38,52,619/- due under various misappropriated accounts with interest thereon @17% per annum with monthly rests from the petitioner/defendant and by sale of the schedule immovable properties. The respondent/applicant bank was allowed to recover the sum of ₹38,52,619/- (Rupees thirty-eight lakhs fifty-two thousand six hundred nineteen only)

Typed by Kuj with interest thereon @9% per annum from 29.08.2019 till realisation and also its costs from the petitioner/defendant as per the final order dated 10.07.2024.

7. Going by R.5A of the Rules, the impugned final order passed by the Tribunal on 10.07.2024 is liable to be reviewed on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Even taking to the larger extent, O.47 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for review of a Judgement on the grounds, namely:- (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, or (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason (which has been interpreted to be analogous to the other reasons specified above). As per sub-rule (2) of R.5A of the Rules (as it stood amended vide GSR 1047 (E) dated 03.11.2016 and made effective from 04.11.2016) no application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the order. The aforesaid sub-rule is couched in a negative language implying a mandatory character of limitation. The use of the word 'shall' makes it further obligatory. As per the stricture laid down under sub-rule (2) of R.5A of the Rules, an application challenging the impugned final order dated 10.07.2024 ought to have been filed before this Tribunal on or before 09.08.2024 but the same was happened to be filed only on 24.08.2024 with a delay of 15 days.

8. No separate IA has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for condonation of delay of fifteen days in presenting RA 7/2024. The review petitioner/defendant in paragraph 4 of the RA under the head 'limitation' stated that the application has been filed within the period of limitation. The averments read as follows:- *"The applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the DRT vide Annexure A1 and restore the OA 1140/2019. The application is within the limitation time as prescribed under R.5A of the Rules."*

9. On scrutiny, the scrutiny hand of the Registry vide remarks dated 28.08.2024 noted a few defects. The defects were cured as per the remarks dated Typed by Krip

29.08.2024 of the scrutiny hand. However, despite the defect of limitation, the Registrar vide order dated 29.08.2024 ordered to register the RA and placed the matter before the Tribunal for hearing on 02.09.2024. The order reads as below:- *"Register as RA. Place the case before the Hon'ble Presiding Officer for hearing on 02.09.2024"*

10. According to the petitioner/defendant, he had filed an IA on the question of maintainability of the OA filed by the respondent/applicant bank but the Tribunal by oversight passed final order in OA instead of order in IA.

11. The petitioner/defendant on 12.04.2021 filed IA 938/2021 challenging the maintainability of the OA. At the request of the respondent/applicant bank, it was recorded in the proceedings dated 11.04.2022 that the said IA would be considered along with OA at the time of disposal. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant on 17.02.2023 filed IA 401/2023 praying for a direction to the respondent/applicant bank to submit its claim before the proper court of law as this Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the OA. Both sides were heard on main as well as IAs as per the proceedings dated 04.07.2023 and the case was posted for orders on 30.11.2023, which was further adjourned to 10.07.2024. During this intervening period, the petitioner/defendant has not made any objection before this Tribunal in respect of the proceedings dated 04.07.2023. He could have made a mention before this Tribunal to reopen the case proceedings in case warranted so. But, much after pronouncing the final order on 10.07.2024, he came up with this contention, which cannot be accepted. Even otherwise the question of limitation and jurisdiction was considered in the final order dated 10.07.2024 as could be inferred from paragraphs 7 to 20 of the aforesaid final order.

12. It is also contended by the petitioner/defendant that he could not adduce any evidence. However, both sides adduced secondary evidence in the case as could be inferred from paragraph 4 of the final order dated 10.07.2024. The petitioner/defendant produced photocopies of 28 documents along with the written statement, which were for convenience referred to as Exts.B1 to B28 in the final order dated 10.07.2024. It is absurd Typed by: Karp on the part of the petitioner/defendant to contend that he did not adduce any evidence in an OA filed on 29.08.2019 before this Tribunal, despite the lapses of six years. He was trying to protract and prolong the matter by filing IAs one after the other for which the relief sought for were already raised in the written statement filed by him. If he could not adduce proper evidence, it is only because of his laxity. Such type of tactics adopted by him cannot be appreciated by this Tribunal, which is against the avowed object of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Though the petitioner/defendant contended that the final order dated 10.07.2024 is not a speaking order, she could not furnish any reason for the same. She could not raise any issue relating to the dispute in the matter which was not addressed by this Tribunal.

13. It is also contended by the petitioner/defendant that without following due process of law and without complying with mandatory provisions and procedures under the Act, the actions of the order of the Tribunal in proceeding with recovery action against the schedule properties is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice and, therefore, this RA is filed for a direction to the respondent/applicant bank not to continue with any further proceedings against the schedule immovable properties. It may be noted that the petitioner/defendant has raised this point without reading the final order dated 10.07.2024 passed by this Tribunal in this case. Going by paragraphs 25 and 26 of the aforesaid final order, the respondent/applicant bank was allowed to recover the amounts claimed as due under the OA from the petitioner/defendant only and not by sale of the schedule immovable properties, for which the remedy lies elsewhere.

14. As stated above, the relief sought for in the instant RA 7/2024 to set aside the impugned final order dated 10.07.2024 is barred by limitation. No IA for condonation of delay has been filed before this Tribunal. Though the petitioner/defendant contended in paragraph 4 of the RA under the head 'limitation' that the application has been filed within the period of limitation, he has not explained as to how the same is filed within the Typed by Kasi period of limitation as specified under sub-rule (2) of R.5A of the Rules. No sufficient and valid reason has been shown by him for the delay of 15 days caused in presenting the same. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner/defendant made out in paragraph 4 of the RA under the head 'limitation' to the effect that the same has been filed within the period of limitation cannot be accepted by this Tribunal. Therefore, on this score alone, the review application is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

15. The pleadings in the review petition and the arguments advanced by the Ld counsel were entirely on merits of the case. According to the review petitioner/defendant, the final order dated 10.07.2024 is hit by the error apparent on the face of the records but he could not point out any such error. It appears to be his case that the view and the final decision taken by this Tribunal in the said final order is wrong and erroneous. A review is not in disguise of an appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [reported in AIR 1966 SC 153] has observed that jurisdiction under O.47 R.1 of the Code cannot be exercised for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected' and held that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. The decision reads thus:- *"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgement may be open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."*

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v Assam State Electricity Board and Others [reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677] has held that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue questions, which have already been addressed to and decided and that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review, and it reads thus: –

Typed by Kupa

*"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time."*

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v State of T.N [reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75] has held that an order sought to be reviewed must suffer from error apparent on face of order and that in the absence of such error apparent, even an erroneous judgement/order cannot be a ground for review and finality of judgement order cannot be disturbed.

18. Going by the memorandum of facts accompanying the review petition, there is not even a whisper therein stating that there was an apparent error/mistake on the face of records in the impugned final order dated 10.07.2024. No such mistake apparent from the records in the eye of law was pointed out by the review petitioner/defendant in the said memorandum of facts of the review petition. The only ground available as per R.5A of the Rules for review is on account of any mistake or error apparent from the record. It is trite law that only those mistakes or errors which are apparent from the face of record could be reviewed. No valid reason was asserted by the review petitioner/defendant on account of which the final order dated 10.07.2024 could be warranted for review. This Tribunal does not see and the review petitioner/defendant could not point out any error/mistake apparent on the face of the records necessitating review of the impugned final order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal.

19. In the above circumstances, this review petition is found to be devoid of any merit and not sustainable and thus is liable to be dismissed. The review petitioner/defendant has no case that he has filed any appeal against the impugned final order dated 10.07.2024 and thus the same has become absolute and final. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (SMT) and others [reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78] has held that where the remedy of appeal is available, the power of review should be exercised by the court with greatest circumspection. In the above circumstances, this Tribunal does not find any reason or ground to interfere in the matter.

Typed by Raj

20. No error or mistake apparent on the face of the records could be pointed out by the review petitioner/defendant but according to him, the order passed is without proper adjudication of the matter in dispute and is in gross violation of the legal provisions of the Act and as such, the final order is illegal.

21. There are two types of erroneous decisions. They are:- (i) erroneous decisions in view of the error committed in appreciating the true facts of the case and applying the law relating thereto, which cannot be rectified by invoking the power under review; and (ii) decision erroneous in view of the error apparent on the face of the records, which can be cured and rectified invoking the power under review. All the contentions raised by the review petitioner/defendant were on the ground that the view taken by the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case was erroneous and thus is unsustainable. It is trite law that improper or erroneous appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be a ground for review for the purpose of setting aside a final order and re-adjudication of the case, for which the remedy lies elsewhere. The error, if any, committed by the Tribunal in properly understanding the facts and circumstances of the case is not a ground for invoking the limited power under review.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P [reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372] has distinguished an erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent' and held that a review by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047] has held that there are definite limits to the exercise of power of review and that power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Kerala State Electricity Board v Sulabha Marketing (P) Ltd [reported in 2018 (1) KLT 765] has held that it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be Typed by Rupa

'reheard and corrected' and that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Pramod Kumar Savita v Union of India [2019 (3) KLT SN 18 (C.No.24)] has held that an erroneous appreciation of pleadings or wrong assumption of contentions cannot be a ground for review and that when grounds raised in review petitions are grounds that ought to be raised in an appeal, it can be said that review petitions are nothing but an appeal in disguise.

23. In such circumstances, the aforesaid facts and grounds brought on record through the memorandum of review petition by the review petitioner/defendant cannot be a legitimate basis for setting aside the impugned final order dated 10.07.2024 and re-adjudication of the matter in dispute. Suffice it to say that the relief prayed for which goes to the root of appreciation of the merits of the case is beyond the scope of R.5A of the Rules before this Tribunal for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the appropriate authority. It implies that this Rule cannot be pressed into service without proving any error apparent on the face of the records to seek for a review. The powers under R.5A of the Rules are neither to be equated with the power of appeal nor can this Tribunal be clothed with such power under the guise of appeal as one cannot sit in appeal of oneself. There is no sufficient ground for a review.

24. In the above circumstances, this review application is found to be devoid of any merit and not sustainable and thus is liable to be dismissed.

25 In the result, RA No.7/2024 is dismissed. All pending IAs stands closed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.

*[Dictated to my PA directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29^th day of August, 2025]*

[IMTIAZ ALI] PRESIDING OFFICER

Typed by: Krip

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 29^th day of August, 2025

**REVIEW APPLICATION NO.7/2024 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1140 OF 2019**

Between

Ravinandan P, S/o M Premkumar, Sri Annapoorneshwari Nilaya, Danatarmakki, Jyothinagara, Chikmagaluru, Karnataka – 577102. ....Petitioner/defendant

And

Canara Bank, having its head office at J C Road, Bangalore and branch among other places at Chikkamagalur, Karnataka – 577101. .... respondent/applicant bank

**ORDER**

✓ 29.8.25