MANIPAL HOUSING FINANCE SYNDICATE LTD vs D M SURESH BABU on 30 September 2025

**ORDER**

Review Application No.4/2024 was filed on 19.03.2024 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 Typed by: [Signature]

Institutions Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the Act' - praying to review and modify the final order dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA 665/2022.

2. The case set out by the review petitioner/defendant in the memorandum accompanying RA No.4/2024 in brief is as follows:- The respondents/applicants on 03.10.2022 filed SA 665/2022 before this Tribunal challenging the possession notice dated 23.08.2022, which was allowed on 29.02.2024 on the ground that the acknowledgement card or postal receipt for service of the same has not been produced along with the statement of objection by this petitioner. During the filing of the statement of objection along with the documents before this Tribunal, the postal acknowledgement card or postal receipts was misplaced and could not be traced out by the petitioner despite earnest efforts and hence they could not be produced in evidence before this Tribunal. On the above grounds, the petitioner/defendant prayed to modify the final order dated 29.02.2024 in SA 665/2022.

3. The respondents/applicants filed a statement of objection contending that the remedy of the petitioner/defendant lies before the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal and that the petitioner/defendant cannot produce new document in the review proceedings.

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

5. The Point:- The respondents/applicants filed SA 665/2022 under S.17(1) of the Act on 03.10.2022 before this Tribunal praying to set aside the possession notice dated 23.08.2022 issued by the petitioner/defendant in respect of the schedule immovable properties. The respondents/applicants are none other than the borrowers to a financial assistance availed in the form of loan aggregating to the sum of ₹45 lakhs from the petitioner/defendant. The said SA was allowed as per the final order dated 29.02.2024

Typed by Kapi setting aside the aforesaid possession notice dated 23.08.2022 and restoring possession to the respondents/applicants.

6. Along with the review application, the petitioner/defendant produced photocopies of postal receipts dated 24.08.2022 for having sent the possession notice dated 23.08.2022 to the respondents/applicants by registered post. It also produced photocopies of the postal acknowledgement cards signed by the respondents/applicants for having received the possession notice on 26.08.2022. It is stated by the petitioner/defendant that such documents produced in the review proceedings could not be traced out despite earnest efforts at the time of filing of the statement of objection and hence the same could not be filed in evidence.

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."*

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 29.02.2024 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 – for short 'the Code' - 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 Typed by Ksan 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. Sub-section (1) of S.22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the RDB Act' - inter-alia says that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. It is well settled that when S.22 of the RDB Act says that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code, it does not mean that it will not have jurisdiction to exercise powers of a Court as contained in the Code, but that the Tribunal can travel beyond the Code, that Tribunal's powers [except as stated in sub-section (2)] are wider than the power of a civil court and that the only fetter that is put on its powers is to observe the principles of natural justice. If any authority is required, we find the same in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd. and others [reported in (1999) 4 SCC 710] and Allahabad Bank, Calcutta v. Radha Krishna Maity and ors. [reported in (1999) 6 SCC 755]. Therefore, the Tribunal can act upon the provisions of the Code. In the above circumstances, there is no force in the contention of the respondents/applicants that the petitioner/defendant is not entitled to produce new document in the review proceedings. The petitioner/defendant is entitled to produce the same before this Tribunal in the review proceedings under R.5A of the Rules r/w S.22(1) of the RDB Act and S.17(7) of the Act.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v Mayawati [reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320], while summarising the principles relating to the maintainability of a review petition, has held that the review would be maintainable at discovery of new and important matter on evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within Typed by Krip the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. The relevant portion reads thus:- *"The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarised as follows:*

*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"*

11. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of the stage at which the power of review can be exercised and held in Union of India v Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd [reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337] that on 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, the power of review can be exercised. The relevant portion reads thus:- *"Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:*

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

12. Also, while explaining the requirements prescribed in O.47 R.1 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhusudhan Reddy v Narayana Reddy [reported in 2022 (5) KLT SN 18 (C No.21) SC : 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1034 (SC) : (2022) 17 SCC 255] has held that it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order, and it reads thus:- *"In order to satisfy the requirements prescribed in O.47 R.1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order. What to speak of conclusive proof of having undertaken an exercise of due diligence for accessing the relevant document, there is not an averment made by the respondents in the second set of review petitions to the effect that they could not trace the documents in question earlier or that they had made sincere efforts to obtain certified copies thereof before the common order dated 09.07.2013 was passed but could not do so for some cogent and valid reasons."*

Typed by Kripa

13. Reliance on the aforesaid view can also be placed upon *Ajit Kumar Rath v State of Orissa and Others [reported in (1999) 9 SCC 596]* and *Board of Control for Cricket in India v Netaji Cricket Club [reported in (2025) 4 SCC 741]*.

14. The petitioner/defendant has specifically averred that the documents produced in the review proceedings could not be produced before this Tribunal before passing of the impugned final order dated 29.02.2024 after having exercised due diligence as the same were misplaced and not traceable at that time. It may be noted that SA 665/2022 was allowed solely for the reason of non-production of evidence in respect of service of the possession notice dated 23.08.2022 to the respondents/applicants, which are dealt with in paragraphs 10 to 22 of the impugned final order dated 29.02.2024. All other contentions raised by them were found unsustainable in the eye of law. The respondents/applicants could not traverse the presumption under the new evidences produced by the petitioner/defendant in the review proceedings by larger evidence of impeccable character. They have not denied the postal acknowledgement cards produced by the petitioner/defendant and their signatures therein. Now the burden of proof has taken a reverse side. Except contending in a vague fashion that no new document can be produced in the review proceedings, the respondents/applicants could not point out any provision of law or any judicial precedent prevailing in the country in support of such contention.

15. In the above new facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal is of the firm opinion that if a party, despite exercising due diligence could not produce a relevant document during the proceedings in an application filed under S.17(1) of the Act before this Tribunal, and later discovered it or obtained it, such a document can be produced in review proceedings to seek correction of the final order passed therein. To put it differently, if a litigant can demonstrate (i) the document is material; (ii) it was not within his knowledge earlier and Typed by Kap

(iii) he exercised due diligence but still could not produce it, then such document can be relied upon in the review proceedings. All these essential requirements are found applicable to the facts of this case. In the light of the above, the newly discovered documents are crucial for a just adjudication of the matter and unless considered, grave prejudice and irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner/defendant. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this review application is liable to be allowed and the findings in paragraphs 10 to 22 of the impugned final order dated 29.02.2024 is liable to be reviewed and reversed. Taking cognizance of the new evidence produced by the petitioner/defendant in the review proceedings, and in view of the discussion as above, it can only be held that the petitioner/defendant has taken possession of the schedule immovable properties on 23.08.2022 in accordance with the provisions contemplated under S.13(4) of the Act r/w sub-rule (1) of R.8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (as amended from time to time) and hence the same is upheld.

16. In the result, all pending IAs stand closed and RA No.4/2024 is allowed and the impugned final order dated 29.02.2024 is modified to the extent of deleting paragraphs 10 to 22 therein whereas retaining the other findings therein without any change and dismissing SA 665/2022 as per the following directions/declarations:-

(i) This Tribunal declares that the measures taken by the petitioner/defendant under S.13(4) of the Act are valid and in accordance with law and thus the possession notice dated 23.08.2022 is revived and upheld.

(ii) The respondents/applicants are directed to surrender symbolic possession of the schedule immovable properties to the petitioner/defendant within seven days from today (provided they had been repossessed);

(ii) clause (iii) in paragraph 33 of the aforesaid final order dated 29.02.2024 is deleted; Typed by Krip

8

- (iii) the petitioner/defendant is permitted to continue with further proceedings pursuant to the possession notice dated 23.08.2022 in accordance with law;

- (iv) 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 30^th day of September, 2025]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ] PRESIDING OFFICER

Typed by Kapi

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 30^th day of September, 2025

**REVIEW APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2024**

**IN**

**SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2022**

Between

Manipal Housing Finance Syndicate Limited, 116, North Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560042, represented by its Manager and authorised officer, Shanthi Shenoy, W/o Vivekananda Shenoy. ....Petitioner/defendant

And

D M Suresh Babu, S/o late C D Muthu Swamy, 15, Kencheppa Road Cross, Frazer Town, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560005 and another. .... Respondents/applicants

**ORDER**

✓ 30.9.25