Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.

ORDER

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard on C.M.Appl.No.1/2025. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 44 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, C.M.Appl. No.1/2025 to condone the delay is allowed.

2. The present Review Petition has been filed under Order XLVII Rule I read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 23.08.2025 arisiong out of WA No.640/2025.

Facts:-

3. The brief facts of the case are that being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the WP(C) No.11829/2019, the Writ Appeal was filed by the petitioner which was numbered as WA No.640/2025.

4. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner had sought the following reliefs:

“(i) To direct the 3^rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P1 representation and complete the proceedings within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To grant such other reliefs which the petitioner may seek from time to time and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to be granted to the circumstances.”

5. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition based on the Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip & Another [2023 Livelaw SC 320], wherein the Supreme Court had depricated the practice adopted by the High Courts, where the Writ Petitions are being entertained in SARFAESI Act matters, especially against the private banks. Being aggrieved, the Writ Appeal was filed. Even the Writ Appeal got dismissed since the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable based on the Apex Court judgments. Now the petitioner has filed the Review Petition only on the issue of cost of Rs.35,000/- having been imposed by the learned Single Judge.

Petitioner’s Contentions:-

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cost itself was uncalled for and the same deserves to be waived.

Respondents’ Contentions:-

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had not been able to point out any apparent error on the face of the record, so as to interfere with the order. In any case, this Review Petition cannot be entertained since the petitioner is seeking waiver of the cost imposed in the Writ Petition and not in a Writ Appeal. The present Review Petition has been filed against the order of Writ Appeal and not the Writ Petition. On these grounds alone, the Review Petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562 , The Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:

“12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674 , this Court observed :

"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept