Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Sahu vs Capri Global Capital Ltd. on 6 March, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10773
1 RP-330-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 330 of 2025
AMIT KUMAR SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
CAPRI GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sachin Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard on the question of admission.
The present review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated
19.11.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.3669/2024, whereby the
Misc. Petition was dismissed declining extension of time already granted by
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in Securitization Application
No.117/2024 vide order dated 25.06.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had availed certain
credit facilities from the respondent No.1 Financial Institution by mortgaging
residential property. Thereafter, certain orders were passed for recovery of
the loan amount. The petitioners filed application for extension of time and
modification of the order dated 12.03.2024 before the Debts Recovery
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10773
2 RP-330-2025
Tribunal, Jabalpur. Vide order dated 25.06.2024, the said application was
allowed by the DRT. Inspite of the aforesaid, the petitioners approached this
Court in M.P. No.3669/2024 seeking modification of the order dated
25.06.2024 and extension of time by two months.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are
ready to deposit the outstanding amount if one opportunity is granted to
deposit the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. It is seen from the order impugned that the DRT has already allowed
the application twice extending the time. There was no occasion to approach
this Court in Miscellaneous Petition when the application itself was allowed
by DRT. The Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed on the ground that time
cannot be extended when the application itself has been allowed by the DRT.
Therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any apparent
error on the face of record so as to entertain this review petition.
7. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani
Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 in paragraphs 12
and 26 has held as under:-
"12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent
on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In
other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a
mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.
When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10773
3 RP-330-2025
face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is
so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be
drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under
the guise of review, the parties are not entitled re-hearing of the same issue but the
issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at
right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned
judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests
formulated above.
26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or
it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self evident, review is permissible and in
this case the High Court has rightly applied the said principles as provided under
Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the arguments
of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, we are in
entire agreement with the view expressed by the High Court".
8. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available
for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S.
Bagirathi Ammal (supra) has held that in order to seek review, it has to be
demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error
which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be
reviewed merely because it is erroneous.
9. In the light of the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal (supra) , we are of the
considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of record
warranting interference by this Court in the impugned order passed in Misc.
Petition No.3669/2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10773
4 RP-330-2025
10. Accordingly, this review petition deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
