Review petitions in DRT are permissible only for mistakes apparent on the record, not for re-evaluating the merits of prior decisions.

JUDGMENT

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

1. Instant appeal has arisen against order passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam, in R.A. 01 of 2023 arising out of S.A. 42 of 2022 decided on 06.12.2023 whereby Learned DRT allowed the Review Application.

2. As far as the facts of the matter are concerned, S.A. 42 of 2022 (Sri Baliboina Siva Prasad -vs- Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) was filed before the Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam which was decided on 19.10.2023. S.A. was decided and dismissed on merits holding that no irregularity or illegality has been committed by the Bank in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. After dismissal of the S.A., Review Petition No. 01 of 2023 was filed by the SARFAESI Applicant before the Learned DRT on the ground that I.A. 2373 of 2023 in S.A. 42 of 2022 was filed by the SARFAESI Applicant wherein counter affidavit was filed by the Bank but the S.A. was dismissed erroneously without considering the prayer made in I.A. 2373 of 2023. It is further stated that the Bank sold two properties after dismissal of the S.A. The sale deed got registered on 21.10.2023. It is further stated that on the assurance given by the Bank in the DRT, I.A. 2373 of 2023 was not pressed by the SARFAESI Applicant but the Bank did not honour its own words.

3. Opposition is filed against the Review Application challenging the maintainability of the Review Petition. It is stated that the review petition is not maintainable under Rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 . S.A. was dismissed on merits. No appeal was preferred against the judgment. I.A. 2373 of 2023 was not pressed by the SARFAESI Applicant himself; accordingly, the I.A. was dismissed.

4. It is alleged that in the present case, one property was more than sufficient to recover the loan, interest, etc. Other property was sold illegally. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Ram Kishun and Others -vs- State of UP and Others in Civil Appeal No. 6404 of 2009 decided on 24.04.2012 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, Learned DRT set aside the auction of his smaller property and cancelled the registration of the sale deed of this property and directed to return the original documents of his smaller property to the Applicant. Further direction was issued that the loss incurred by the Bank be recovered from the concerned Authorised Officer.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the Secured Creditor/Bank has preferred the instant appeal.

6. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Review Petition, filed by the SARFAESI Applicant, was not legally maintainable. SARFAESI Application was decided on merits after considering the materials available on record. No appeal is filed against the judgment which attained finality. No mistake or error, apparent on record, could be shown by the SARFAESI Applicant which warrants review of the judgment.

8. Per contra Learned Counsel for Respondent/SARFAESI Applicant submits that I.A. 2373 of 2023 was filed before the Learned DRT wherein it was undertaken by the Bank that the documents of smaller property would be returned to the SARFAESI Applicant as sale proceeds of bigger property were sufficient for liquidating the loan. On this assurance I.A. was not pressed on 18.10.2023, but judgment was delivered on 19.10.2023 without considering the undertaking given by the Bank. It was further contended that sale proceeds of bigger property was sufficient to liquidate the loan but the Bank has illegally sold the s