SMT RENUKAMBA P vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED on 29 August 2025

**ORDER**

Review Application No.2/2024 was filed on 01.03.2024 under R.5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Rules' - r/w S.17(7) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction and Financial Institutions Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Act' - praying to review and set aside the final order dated 08.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA 556/2016.

2. The case set out by the review petitioner/applicant in the memorandum accompanying RA No.2/2024 in brief is as follows:- SA 556/2016 was dismissed as per the final order dated 08.02.2024 on the ground that the petitioner/applicant is not aggrieved by the recourse taken by the authorised officer of the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant under sub-section (4) of S.13 of the Act by virtue of the possession notice dated 03.11.2016. This Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the said SA by ignoring the case of the petitioner/applicant. The said final order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the records. On the above grounds, the petitioner/applicant prayed for review of the impugned final order dated 08.02.2024.

3. The 1^st respondent/1^st defendant filed a statement of objection submitting as follows:- The petitioner/applicant has already approached the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by filing an appeal in RA 65/2025 on 04.03.2024. The review application is not maintainable. On the above contentions, the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant prayed for dismissal of the review application with costs.

4. It was recorded in paragraph 4 of the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA 556/2016 that no steps were taken for issue of summons as against respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 as per the available records in the file and hence the SA as against them stands dismissed. But the petitioner/applicant has arrayed respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 also as party in the RA. When summons is not served the question of opposite party does not arise at all. The proviso to sub-rule (3) of R.5A of the Rules provides for notice to the opposite party in a review application. It is pertinent to be mentioned here that the aforesaid provision of law refers to 'opposite party' in respect of notice. It is apparently clear that the use of the words 'opposite party' by the Rule makers in their wisdom is not without any reason and without any significance. It can only be presumed that the opposite party in the aforesaid proviso means such parties who have contested the previous proceedings and not who remained absent or ex-parte. To put it differently, those parties who had appeared at any stage of the previous proceedings only means the word 'opposite party'. Otherwise, it will lead to an awkward situation that the parties who remained ex-parte in the previous proceedings can contest in the review proceedings. The law does not provide for the same. Respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 did not appear in the proceedings in SA

556/2016 as summons had not been served upon them. In the above circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 are not necessary and proper parties in the impugned RA proceedings and no need is there to issue a notice as against them. This Tribunal is fortified in this view by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Girija H @ Girija Srinivasan v Anandalakshmi & Anr [reported in 2020 (1) KLJ 207 : 2019 ICO 2828]. In the above circumstances, the RA as against respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 stands dismissed.

5. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the review petitioner/applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for?

6. The Point:- The review petitioner/applicant filed SA 556/2016 under S.17(1) of the Act on 05.12.2016 before this Tribunal praying to set aside the possession notice dated 03.11.2016 issued by the authorised officer of the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant in respect of the schedule immovable properties. The petitioner/applicant is none other than the borrower to a financial assistance in the form of a term loan of ₹12,87,730/- availed from ICICI Bank and taken over by the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant bank. The said SA was dismissed as per the final order dated 08.02.2024.

7. 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."*

Digitally Signed

8. Going by R.5A of the Rules r/w S.17(7) of the Act, the impugned final order passed by the Tribunal on 08.02.2024 is liable to be reviewed on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record only. 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).

9. According to the review petitioner/applicant, this Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the said SA by ignoring the case of the petitioner/applicant and the said final order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the records. Except contending so, the review petitioner/applicant could not point out any of the challenge or grievance she made out in the SA as against any of the measures taken under S.13(4) of the Act by the authorised officer of the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant, which were found to be omitted by this Tribunal. No grievance as against any of the measures taken under S.13(4) of the Act by the authorised office of the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant has been pointed out by the review petitioner/applicant in the pleadings in the SA except making statements of carrying out such measures. The same pleadings have been repeated in the review application also. All the contentions raised by way of grounds in RA filed on 01.03.2024 are such which ought to have been raised in the original SA, which cannot be agitated in a review petition as new plea. It is trite law that a review petitioner is not allowed to be set up a new case or to raise a new plea or issue (other than a question of law) not supported by the original pleadings or evidence on the record in a review petition. The review petitioner/applicant, on the basis of the pleas and evidences adduced in RA has sought this Tribunal to re-examine the facts and circumstances of the case and to declare that the authorised officer of the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant has not complied with the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and to set aside the possession notice dated 03.11.2016. The review petitioner/applicant has misconstrued the scope and purpose of a review application. By virtue of this review petition, the petitioner/applicant has sought for an order considering all the pleadings raised in the said SA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Kamlesh Verma v Mayawati [reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320]* has summarised the principles relating to review jurisdiction and has explained as to when the review would not be maintainable. As held by the Apex Court therein, a repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications and also review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

10. The scope of review is microscopic. A review petitioner cannot reargue his case. At the time of advancement of arguments, Ld counsel for the review petitioner argued at length on the issues as raised in the SA on the ground that this Tribunal had not properly addressed or failed to address the issues while passing the impugned order.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the maintainability of a review petition in *Kamlesh Verma v Mayawati [reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320]* has held that repetition of old contentions/arguments in review is not enough to reopen a concluded matter. The relevant portion reads thus:-

*"Therefore, inasmuch as the very same point has been urged once again, in the light of the settled principles relating to review of judgements and orders, same is impermissible. In such circumstances and in the light of enormous decisions, there is no material within the parameters of review jurisdiction to go into the earlier order dated 06.07.2012 in Mayawati, (2012) 8 SCC 106".*

12. 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/applicant, the final order dated 08.02.2024 is hit by the error apparent on the face of the records but she could not point out any such error. It appears to be her 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'."

13. 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 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: –

"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."

14. 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.

15. 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 08.02.2024. No such mistake apparent from the records in the eye of law was pointed out by the review petitioner/applicant in the said memorandum of facts of the review petition. The only ground available as per

R.5A of the Rules made applicable by virtue of S.17(7) of the Act 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/applicant on account of which the final order dated 08.02.2024 could be warranted for review. This Tribunal does not see and the review petitioner/applicant could not point out any error/mistake apparent on the face of the records necessitating review of the impugned final order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Tribunal.

16. 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/applicant has no case that she has filed any appeal against the impugned final order dated 08.02.2024 and thus the same has become absolute and final. However, the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant has submitted that the petitioner/applicant has already approached the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by filing an appeal in RA 65/2025 on 04.03.2024. 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.

17. No error or mistake apparent on the face of the records could be pointed out by the review petitioner/applicant but according to her, the final 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.

18. 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/applicant 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.

19. 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 '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 petition is nothing but an appeal in disguise.

Sundika

20. In such circumstances, the aforesaid facts and grounds brought on record through the memorandum of review petition by the review petitioner/applicant cannot be a legitimate basis for setting aside the impugned final order dated 08.02.2024 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.

21. 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.

22. In the result, RA No.2/2024 is dismissed. All pending IAs stands closed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.

*[Dictated to my P.A. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29^th day of August, 2025]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ] PRESIDING OFFICER

10/10/2025

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. 2 OF 2024**

**IN**

**SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.556 OF 2016**

Between

Renukamba P, W/o B Nanjundaiah, 509/418, Nandeeshwara Complex, Bew BEL Road, Devasnandra, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560054

...Petitioner/Applicant

And

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Registered Office, 278KC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400051, represented by its Managing Director and CEO, (branch office at F-1603, 16^th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001, represented by its Manager (and also at 7^th Floor, (7, Sector 125, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, represented by its Manager) (and also at 59, Shree Complex, BHSCT Block, Banashankari 3^rd Stage, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560085, represented by its Manager) and two others..... Respondents/defendants

**ORDER**

29.8.25