The review process cannot serve as a second hearing for previously determined facts and legal conclusions.

O R D E R

The review is filed against the judgment dated 23.07.2025 in W.P.(C)

No.31125/2025. This Court, through the said judgment, found that the petitioner had made a payment of 10% as EMD, and had deposited the balance 15% only on 01.12.2023, violating the stipulation in Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules , 2002.

2. The averment in the review petition is that the petitioner had made 10% of the EMD before 28.11.2023, and the balance 15% was paid on 28.11.2023 itself. This contention of the review petitioner is contrary to Ext.P3 issued by the Bank and produced in the writ petition dated 15.05.2024, which says that the total amount of Rs.7,85,000/- towards 25% of the bid amount was made only on 01.12.2023. This is again repeated in Ext.R1(a) produced by the Bank, which shows that the petitioner had not remitted the amount before 01.12.2023.

3. It was taking note of the above dates that the writ petition was allowed, as the Bank, which accepted the payment in violation of Rule 9(3), could not contend that the auction purchaser violated Rule 9(4). Since the contention now raised by the Bank in the review petition runs counter to Ext.P3 and Annexure R1(a), the same cannot constitute a ground for reviewing the judgment. A review cannot be converted into a second round of hearing.

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.