Allahabad Bank vs Himanshu Rakheja And Ors.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the review application.

The borrowers-review applicants filed the S.A. before the DRT, Lucknow challenging the SARFAESI action taken by the Bank for recovery of the loan sanctioned to the borrowers, alleging that the demand notice and the possession notice were not served and the OTS proposal was not properly considered. The Tribunal below vide order dated 7.10.2019 observed that the demand notice dated 21.08.2018 was duly served. However, the possession notice was not issued in accordance with rules, therefore, the possession notice was set aside.

The Bank challenged the said order by filing the appeal before this Tribunal, which was allowed on 3.3.2021 and the order of the Tribunal below was set aside. The present review application has been filed on behalf of the borrowers/guarantors to review the judgment dated 3.3.2021.

The learned counsel for the review applicants submits that the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was never served nor the correct amount was mentioned in the said demand notice. The sanctioned loan was also not disbursed. Similarly, the possession notice was also not served and sent on the correct address. Although no cross appeal was filed by the borrowers, but such objections were taken in the counter objection filed by the borrowers. Thus, the issues were not dealt with by this Tribunal, therefore, the order be reviewed treating the cross objection as cross appeal.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Bank contends that all the issues raised in the appeal, as also raised in the cross objection, had been duly decided after due appreciation of evidence. There is no apparent error on the face of record. The review-applicants have filed the present petition with a view to derail the recovery proceedings of the Bank by abusing the process of law, therefore, the same be dismissed with cost.

Considered the arguments and perused the record.

It is settled proposition of law that the scope of review is very limited and even an erroneous judgment cannot be rectified by self-same court under the garb of review or modification application. Further, it is not open to the court to re-appreciate the evidence and to reach on different conclusion, unless there is error apparent on the face of record. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed in Misc. Single No. 36910 of 2019-Smt. Ekta Agarwal and 2 others Vs. Alindra Chandra and 3 others, decided on 14.02.2020.

In the instant case, this Tribunal has passed a detailed order after due discussions of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and on the basis of the material available on record. The issue of one time settlement has been dealt with at para 10 of the judgment. The service of demand notice has been decided in para 11. Further, the main controversy with regard to service of possession notice has been dealt with at paras 12 to 16 on the basis of documents filed by the parties. Thus, even the issues raised in the cross objection had been pondered over.

Learned counsel for the review applicants has not been able to demonstrate about any apparent error on the face of record, which requires correction or rectification. The judgment cannot be re-opened for fresh hearing and re- appreciation of evidence on the basis of any review petition.

In view of the above, there are no grounds for review of the order. The review petition is devoid of force, hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the parties as well as the DRT concerned and be also uploaded on the e-DRT portal.