JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. S. Goswami, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Parvez, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Ms. A. Begum, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. This application, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Sections 114 and 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the petitioner, Dr. Bhaben Chandra Baishya for reviewing the judgment and order, dated 02.03.2022, passed by this court in CRP(I/O) 393/2019.

3. The factual backgrounds leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“The review petitioner, namely, Dr. Bhaben Ch. Baishya, being the plaintiff, instituted a Title Suit No.323/2014, before the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, and for a declaration that there is no valid and genuine mortgage of the suit property created by respondent No.2, Shri Partha Pratim Das. Be it noted here that respondent No.2, Shri Partha Pratim Das (defendant No.2 in the Title Suit No.323/2014) has availed a term loan of Rs. 14,90,000/ from the respondent No.1-Bank (defendant No.1 in Title Suit No.323/2014), which was sanctioned after verification of his title in respect of a suit land and property. Subsequently, respondent No.2 had defaulted in payment of the loan to the respondent No.1-Bank, and the said loan became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Thereafter, the respondent No.1-Bank has initiated its proceeding under SARFAESI Act, by publication of notice through Newspapers, but, respondent No.2 had never filed any representation against such notice. Thereafter, the review petitioner -Dr. Bhaben Chandra Baishya (plaintiff in the Title Suit) had served a legal notice to the respondent No.1-Bank that he had purchased the suit property from the respondent No.2, vide registered sale deed No.5644/2012. The respondent No.1-Bank then submitted its reply that review petitioner had purchased the suit property on 18.06.2012, and that his right over the suit property is subject to earlier mortgage created in favour of the respondent No.1-Bank, by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1-Bank also stated that it has taken symbolic possession of the suit property on 26.08.2014, and also published a possession notice on 31.08.2014, and as such, the suit comes under the ambit of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the provision of Section 34 of the said Act and under Order VII Rule 11 (D) of the CPC. Thereafter, the respondent No.1-Bank had filed a petition (No. 805/2018) before the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati for rejection of the suit. The review petitioner had filed written objection to the said petition and stated that the respondent No.1-Bank and respondent No.2 have committed fraud and respondent No.2 suppressed material fact regarding the loan and the mortgage because the respondent No.2 had availed a loan and mortgaged the suit property to respondent No.3 -UCO Bank, and the said loan account of respondent No.2 was closed on 21.11.2011, on payment of entire amount paid by the review petitioner (plaintiff) and by showing the land to be free from all encumbrances and that he was shocked when the respondent No.1-Bank has served notice, and on enquiry he came to know that respondent No.2 has mortgaged the suit property and availed loan from the respondent No.1-Bank on 25.05.2011. The review petitioner also claimed that the respondent No.1-Bank had sanctioned the loan fraudulently without receiving the copy of the title deed and that after purchasing of the land by the review petitioner, the respondent No.1-Bank hurriedly took away the sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar by swearing a false affidavit and that there was conspiracy hatched between the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1-Bank to deprive him from getting the suit land, which he had purchased genuinely. The review petitioner (plaintiff) also