[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Atul Anand vs Punjab National Bank on 9 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2273
1 RP-54-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 54 of 2026
SHRI ATUL ANAND
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Maindiretta - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The petitioner herein/borrower has filed the present Review
Petition under order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 seeking review of order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.10385/2013 whereby the order dated
25.04.2012 has been confirmed.
2. This Review Petition is preferred solely on the ground that the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of M.Rajendran &
Ors Vs. M/s KPK Oils and Protients India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported
in 2025 INSC 1137 wherein it was held that Section 13(8) of SARFAESI
Act is not operated retrospective.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2273
2 RP-54-2026
3. We have perused the record and the facts of the case as
described in paragraph 15 and 16 of the order dated 08.12.2025, which
reads as under:-
"15. After considering the all judgement the
legal position is that after amendment of the
SARFAESI Act, in 2002, the amended provisions
of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it
clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the
secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the
very date of publication of the notice for public
auction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002. In
effect, the right of redemption available to the
borrower under the present statutory regime is
drastically curtailed and would be available only till
the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1)
of the Rules of 2002 and not till the completion of
the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of
the auction purchaser.
" 15 In present Case the notice under Rule
9(1) of the Rules of 2002 issued on 20/04/09 and
auction was bid for 27.15Lacs against the due
amount 40,95,384 on the date 27/4/2009. SA
application no 70/09 was filed on 6/5/09 Before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2273
3 RP-54-2026
filing the SA application auction proceedings was
completed . Therefore, interim order dated 22/5/09
passed by DRT, Jabalpur has no effect to quashed
the auction on the date 27/4/2009. DRT order has
only precluded the bank to issue sale certificate
nothing more. It is very well clear the auction
proceedings is completed on the dated when the bid
was accepted, before accepting the bid borrower
has a right to redeem the mortgage property not till
the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured
asset in favour of the auction purchaser.
16. After auction proceedings of mortgage
property is completed, bank has no right to
accepted one time settlement with the permission of
the DRT, Jabapur because right to auction
purchaser has been created on the date when the
auction was completed. Borrower has not
challenged the order of DART Allahabad only
support of bank appeal, Therefore, no irregularity
found in the order of DRAT Allahabad."
4. It is a well-established legal principle is that the power of
review is extremely limited, and a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, by itself, does not ordinarily constitute a valid ground
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2273
4 RP-54-2026
for reviewing an earlier order. The Supreme Court has consistently held
that review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor
can they be used for re-hearing the matter or for applying subsequent
developments in law. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, it was held that a review is not
permissible merely for rehearing the case on merits or because another
view is possible. Similarly, in Parsoni Devi v. State of Bihar , (2004) 1
SCC 632, the Court reiterated that review is maintainable only in cases
of an error apparent on the face of the record, a patent mistake, or a
manifest injustice, and not merely on account of a subsequent change in
law.
5. In the present case, the petitioner/borrower has not challenged
the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 25.04.2012 by
way of appeal or any other appropriate proceedings.
6. In view of above, there is no error apparent on the face of the
record. Review Petition is dismissed, accordingly.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
