Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

This petition is filed seeking review of the order passed in W.P. No.35413 of 2013 dated 23.06.2014. The petitioners herein filed W.P.No.35413 of 2013 seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order passed, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2009. S.A. No.97 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners herein, under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the “SARFAESI Act”), to set aside the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-bank herein, under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, against the scheduled property as void, illegal and arbitrary; to direct the 2nd respondent-bank to give a valid discharge of the liability over the scheduled property; and to deliver the documents/execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioners.

In its order, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2013, the Debts Recovery Tribunal observed that the petitioners had challenged the action of the 2nd respondent-bank in invoking the jurisdiction of the SARFAESI Act, and in taking measures under Section 13(4) thereof, against the scheduled property solely on the ground of exclusive ownership of the said property by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 31.12.2007; the petitioners had not pointed out any irregularity committed by the 2nd respondent-bank, while initiating proceedings for taking measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder; the petitioners had no right over the scheduled property as ownership was not conveyed in their favour; they had no absolute right over the property by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 31.12.2007; and they were not entitled to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-bank, when proceeding against the scheduled property by invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, because of the default committed by the borrowers in servicing their loan account as they were due a large sum of money to the 2nd respondent-bank. While dismissing S.A. No.97 of 2009, the Division bench directed the 2nd respondent-bank to return Rs.10.00 Lakhs deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 19.03.2009.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of W.P. No.35413 of 2013. The Division Bench, in its order in W.P. No.35413 of 2013, framed three points for consideration. Firstly, whether the second respondent bank – a private bank - was an instrumentality of the “State” amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; secondly, whether the agreement of sale, obtained by the petitioners from respondents 8 and 9, is hit by Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act? and, if so, whether the petitioners were entitled to challenge the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-bank under the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and under the SARFAESI Act?; and thirdly, whether the petitioners were entitled to challenge the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in S.A. No.97 of 2009 dated 20.09.2013, without exhausting the alternative remedy provided by way of an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. On all the three points, the Division bench held in favour of the 2nd respondent bank and against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed this review petition.

Before examining the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners, on the reasons why the order of the Division bench in W.P. No.35413 of 2013 dated 23.06.2014 necessitates review, it is necessary to examine the scope of enquiry in review proceedings. Nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave palpable errors committed by it. (Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 19