Chattisgarh High Court
Mrs Polly Chakraborty vs Chairman And Managing Director on 8 May, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:21968-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 3 of 2021
1. Mrs Polly Chakraborty W/o Late Dr Achinto Chakraborty Aged
About 40 Years R/o F-6, B-2, 3rd Floor, Shriram Towers
Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. Chairman & Managing Director Pubjab National Bank 4th
Floor, 5 Sansad Marg New Delhi-7, District : New Delhi, Delhi
2. Regional Manager Punhab National Bank, Circle Office,
Pandari Raipiur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Branch Manager/authorized Officer Punjab National Bank,
Budhwari Bazar Branch, Behind Railway Post Office Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu and
Hon'ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandrawanshi, JJ
Order On Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
8.5.2025
1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking review of the
judgment/order dated 23.10.2019 passed in Writ Appeal
No.398/2019 affirming the order dated 1.8.2019 passed by
learned Single Judge in WPC No.807/2015 thereby refusing
to entertain writ petition on the ground of availability of
efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal/application before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of
2002 against the proceedings initiated under Section 13 (4) of
the Act of 2002.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would argue that the view expressed by learned Single Judge
for not entertaining writ petition against the order passed by
the DRT i.e. availability of alternate remedy of filing appeal
under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, is not correct because
very initiation of proceeding by respondent Bank before the
DRT was not maintainable in view of the fact that the subject
matter of the proceeding i.e. the amount which was sought to
be recovered by respondent Bank from petitioner herein was
less than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) and according to
the provisions of Section 1 (4) of the Recovery of Debts due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the provisions of
the Act of 1933 would not apply where the amount of debt due
to any bank or financial institution is less than Rs.10 lakh and
therefore, it was not open to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to
entertain the matter as the amount claimed by respondent
bank was less than Rs.10 lakh. He next contended that the
respondent Bank without following the due procedure
prescribed in the Act of 2002 and without serving proper
notice as prescribed under Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2002
initiated recovery proceeding against petitioner for taking
possession of the secured assets and hence the entire
proceedings have become vitiated. In support of his
submissions, he places reliance upon the decision in case of
Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. and another vs.
Prudent ARC Limited and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 12.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the order which is sought to be reviewed.
4. Perusal of the contents of review petition would show that the
review petitioner has filed this review mainly on the ground
that writ Court has committed illegality in refusing to entertain
writ petition on account of availability of alternate remedy. The
grounds raised in review petition are the same which have
already been raised in writ appeal, which were duly
considered and dismissed by this Court in the order sought to
be reviewed and therefore the review petitioner will not be
permitted to ask for re-appreciation of facts and grounds
already considered and decided. In fact, the instant review
petition on the grounds enumerated therein appears to be an
appeal in disguise. The grounds taken by petitioner are
either that the finding recorded by the Court is not legally
tenable, or that the same is perverse, or that the same is
unacceptable. A judgment/order may be wrong, erroneous,
incorrect, legally untenable, etc. but nevertheless remains a
valid judgment in the eyes of law against which the only
course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal
against the same. Such grounds do not constitute errors of
fact or of law on the face of the record as would call for a
review. In the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. Vs.
Chief Executive Officer, MP and Ors., reported in (2004) 10
SCC 126, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
"10........A point that has been heard and decided
cannot form a ground for review even if assuming
that the view taken in the judgment under review is
erroneous."
5. Even, it is well settled in law that in the guise of review,
rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to
be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the
face of record. The scope of review is very limited and an
order or judgment is open to review only if there is a mistake
or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has
observed thus:
"8. It is well settled law that the review proceedings
are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII,
Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the
powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while
dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High
Court while seeking to review the orders under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in
the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam
Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy,
J. has made the following pertinent observations:
"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the
Constitution to preclude the High Court from
exercising the power of review which inheres
in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
grave and palpable errors committed by
it......."
6. In case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assam State
Electricity Board and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677,
it was held thus:-
"25. .......The scope of review has been reiterated by
this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the
judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs.
Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein
in paragraph 9 following has been laid down:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may
be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake
or an error apparent on the face of the record.
An error which is not self- evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of
the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review
petition, it must be remembered has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal
in disguise"."
7. In case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through Lrs Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86, it was
held thus:-
"18. It is a settled law that every error whether factual
or legal cannot be made subject matter of review
under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be
made subject matter of appeal arising out of such
order. In other words, in order to attract the
provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the
error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the
record of the case."
8. As far as the decision relied upon by learned Senior Counsel
for petitioner is concerned, the same is of no help to the
applicant because a subsequent judgment of the superior
Court taking a contrary view on the point covered by the
judgment sought to be reviewed does not amount to a
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. On this
very issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent
pronouncement in case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs K.L.
Rathi Steels Ltd. reported in (2024) SCC 315, has observed
thus:-
"57. This Court in Subramanian Swamy v. State of
T.N., has read the Explanation as follows: (SCC
pp.96-97, para 52)
"52....The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides
that if the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the court is based, is
reversed or modified by the subsequent
decision of a superior court in any other case,
it shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision
cannot be a ground for the court to undertake
review, as the first and foremost requirement of
entertaining a review petition is that the order,
review of which is sought, suffers from any
error apparent on the face of the order and in
absence of any such error, finality attached to
the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.
58. The final one is a decision of the Constitution
Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy
(Adhar Review-5J). The majority was of the
following view: (SCC p.5, para 2);-
"2.The present review petitions have been
filed against the final judgment and order
dated 26.09.2018. We have perused the
review petitions as well as the grounds in
support thereof. In our opinion, no case for
review of judgment and order dated
26.09.2018 is made out. We hasten to add
that change in the law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger
Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review. The review petitions are
accordingly dismissed."
9. Keeping in mind the decisions quoted above and considering
the grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition,
this Court is of considered view that review petitioner failed to
point any error apparent on the face of record warranting
review of the order dated 23.10.2019. Being so, the review
petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby
SYED
ROSHAN dismissed. No order as to cost.
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally
signed by
SYED ROSHAN Sd/- Sd/-
ZAMIR ALI
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Naresh Kumar Chandrawanshi)
Judge Judge
roshan/-
