The power of review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appellate jurisdiction.

ORDER: (R. BANUMATHI, J.)

We have disposed of A.S.No.708 of 2008 (preferred by 1st respondent/Plaintiff), A.S.No.946 of 2009 (preferred by Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2) and W.P.No.23405 of 2009 filed by 1st Respondent/Plaintiff by our common judgment dated 23.2.2010.

2. Stating that the order of the Division Bench suffers from error apparent on the face of record, that there is total lack of jurisdiction and the Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction, Review Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred these review petitions seeking review of the Judgment in A.S.No.708 of 2008 and W.P.No.23405 of 2009. Even though it was a common judgment, no review is sought for in respect of A.S.No.946 of 2009.

3. Grievance of the review petitioners is that the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code by going into the questions, which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue by formulating questions of law, which did not arise in the first appeal and by interfering with the order of trial Court, which held that the Plaintiff is entitled to a "decree for specific performance" subject to mortgage of the Indian Bank without even an appeal against the said conditional decree. Further grievance of the review petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 is that directions have been issued by the Court based on facts, which were not pleaded and by ignoring the statutory provisions in Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short, "RDB Act") and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "SARFAESI Act") and they require to be reviewed.

4. The learned counsel for 1st Respondent/Plaintiff Mr.R.Thaigarajan submitted that there is no question of assumption of excessive jurisdiction or any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment. Reiterating the findings in the common judgment, the learned counsel submitted that the power of review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the judgment does not suffer any such error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel submitted that as per the direction of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.31358 of 2009, the Writ Petition was heard along with Appeals and exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court has rightly issued direction to DRT and the same cannot be assailed as error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel further submitted that any error not being apparent on the face of the record cannot be sought to be reviewed by filing a review application. In support of his contention, the learned counsel inter alia placed reliance upon AIR 1960 SC 137 (SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE AND OTHERS VS. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE), (MEERA BHANJA (SMT) VS. NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHURY (SMT) (1995) 1 SCC 170, PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715), INDERCHAND JAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. MOTILAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ((2009) 14 SCC 663, HARIDAS DAS VS. USHA RANI BANIK (SMT) AND OTHERS ((2006) 4 SCC 78), B.DHANALAKSMI VS. M.SHAJAHAN (AIR 2004 MADRAS 512) and other decisions.

5. It was stated before us that based upon the Judgment, the Plaintiff has deposited Rs.7,84,13,020/- to the credit of O.S.No.336 of 2006 and Bank has also filed application for payment out before the trial Court (Principal District Court, Chengalpattu) and trial Court has also ordered payment out and issued Cheque in favour of Indian Bank on 25.3.2010. Placing reliance upon STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANOTHER VS. TOULVI KIBAMI AND ANOTHER ((2003) 8 SCC 671), the learned counsel Mr.R.Thiagarajan submitted that the impugned judgment was already acted upon and the Review Application is not maintainable. The Plaintiff had only deposited the amount. The major part of the execution of decree is execution of the sale deed. In such circumstances, it cannot be sai