AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
Heard on IA No.2627/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, IA No.2624/2026 is allowed. The delay in filing of petition is allowed.
Also heard on admission.
The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed in WP No.42054/2025.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the applicant is a borrower, and without impleading him, the petition was filed by the respondent/bank. She further argued that the property in question was already acquired by NHAI and the said fact was not brought to the notice of this court.
This court has disposed of the petition filed by the respondent/secured creditor for execution of order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act with the following directions:
Without adverting to the aforesaid submission, the present petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No.2 to execute the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a period of 1 month from the date of filing of copy of the order passed today if there is no legal impediment and no contrary order is passed by the competent authority or, Court."
Upon perusal of the said order, it is evident that we have passed an order to implement the order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act if there is no legal impediment and no contrary order is passed by the competent authority or the court.
Thus, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, as even if the land has been acquired by NHAI that would not affect the rights created in favour of the bank. It is well settled that cases are heard and decided only once. To make departure from this statutory rule, the revision application must strictly fall within the established parameters. In light of settled principles of law, my considered opinion is that there is no merit and substance in the review petition as in a review, the Court has very limited power circumscribed by definitive limits. Even after elaborate arguments, no error apparent on the face of record could be pointed out.
The review petition is dismissed.