Review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1 are limited in scope and cannot seek rehearing of the entire matter.

O R D E R

Heard Sri.M Harisharma, the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

2. The respondent in this review petition – the petitioner in the OP(C) had approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the order in I.A. No.604 of 2012 in O.S. No.208 of 2011 of the Sub Court, Tirur, dated 27.01.2016 to the extent the prayer made for a stay of further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of O.A No.67 of 2010, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal – II, Ernakulam, was rejected.

3. In the original petition, the contentions raised by Sri.M Harisharma with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. and Others v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Others [(2009) 8 SCC 646] , have been extensively considered;

however, the issue was found against the petitioner herein.

4. The attempt of Sri.M Harisharma in this review petition, by placing reliance on the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India and Another v. Prabhajain and Others [(2025) 4 SCC 38] , is to have a rehearing of the entire matter, contending that the DRT would not be in a position to consider the issue noticed in the judgement of this Court.

I am of the opinion that the attempt of the review petitioner herein is to have a rehearing of the entire issue through this review petition. The scope of a review petition under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , being limited, I am of the view that the review petition does not deserve entertainment. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-