The review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, not for rearguing previously decided matters, consistent with established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J CM APPL. 69366/2025 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 69367/2025 (172 days delay in filing Review Petition)

3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the Review Petition.

4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed.

5. The Application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 556/2025

6. The present Review Petition has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC seeking review of the Judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11524/2019 (“Judgment”) on the following grounds:

6.1 There are errors apparent on the face of record in the Impugned Judgment. The findings recorded in Paragraph No. 50 of the Judgment to the effect that the Property being Flat No. A-701, Kasarwani Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, of Respondent No. 8, Mr. Rakesh Patwa, released by Respondent No. 1 Bank, was not of the principal borrower, is clearly erroneous as Respondent No. 8 was one of the partners of Respondent No. 4, M/s Patwa Madan Lal Ashok Kumar. Therefore, Respondent No. 8, whose property was released by Respondent No. 1, was a principal borrower qua the partnership firm, i.e., Respondent No. 4.

6.2 The principles discussed in Paragraph No. 49 of the Judgment analyzing the provisions of Sections 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, in the Impugned Judgment, the said principles were not applied as there was a perverse recording to the effect that Respondent No. 1 has not released the property of principal borrower, whereas, Respondent No. 8, being the partner of Respondent No. 4 partnership firm, was the principal borrower.

6.3 Further, Respondent No. 1 released the said property of Respondent No. 8 without either knowledge or consent of the Petitioners and intentionally concealed the same from the Petitioners.

6.4 The Judgment inadvertently omitted important factual matrix regarding the conduct of auction proceedings qua the Petitioners’ property. Respondent No. 1 agreed upon the Petitioners’proposal of ₹3.56 Crores for the release of the Khari Baoli Property and thereafter, a sum of ₹35 Lakhs was paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, on the same day, Respondent No. 1 issued a notice whereby the auction of the Petitioners’

property was withdrawn.

6.5 It is admitted by Respondent No. 1 that a letter was sent by Respondent No. 11 to Respondent No. 1, which was received at Recovery Division, HO on 31.10.2025, wherein, Respondent No. 11 offered to purchase the Petitioners’ property for ₹5 Crores and enclosed a cheque of ₹50 lakhs as earnest money.

6.6 On 31.10.2025, there was no auction proceedings pending qua the Petitioners’ property. However, on 02.11.2025, Respondent No. 1 rejected the Petitioners’ proposal without giving any reason or justification for the same and thereafter, on 10.11.2025, refunded the amount of ₹35 Lakhs deposited by the Petitioners. Further, on 02.11.2025, without informing the Petitioners about Respondent No. 11’s proposal, Respondent No. 1 issued fresh e- auction notice, which was to be held on 09.12.2025. On 09.12.2025, Respondent No. 1 intimated Respondent No. 11 regarding the acceptance of the bid for the Khari Baoli Property for a sum of ₹5,00,20,000/-. Thereafter, on 11.12.2025, the agreement to sell the said property was ex