1 2025:CGHC:44032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 246 of 2025 Tejpal Singh Kukreja S/o Gurumukh Kukreja, Aged About 45 Years Proprietor- M/s Shammy Paddy, Main Road, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) (Res. No. 3 In W.P.(C) No. 3028/2025) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - D.C.B. Bank Ltd., Through Its Authorised Representative Shri Ashirbad Sahoo, Age- 38, S/o Rama Chandra Sahoo Branch Address- B.S. Saw Mill, Village Kurra, Post- Patewa, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Regd. Address- 6th Floor, Tower- A, Peninsula Business, Park, Senapati Bazar Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 (M.H.) (Petitioner In W.P.(C) No. 3028/2025) 2 - District Collector District - Gariyaband, C.G. Office Address - Baherabuda, Dongaripara, Chhattisgarh (Res. No. 2 In W.P.(C) No. 3028/2025) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tahsildar Gariyaband, Tahsildar Office, Gariyaband (C.G.) (Res. No. 1 W.P.(C) No. 3028/2025). ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. KK Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. For Respondent/Bank : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Mahakunda, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29.08.2025 1. The applicant has filed this review petition with following reliefs: 2 “that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to recall/ review the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.3028/2025 by dismissing the writ petition, with exemplary cost upon the respondent no. 1 for suppressing the material facts, in the interest of justice” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant review petition is filed by the applicant, who was respondent No.1 in the original writ petition, i.e ,W.PC No.3028/2025 by questioning the order dated 15.07.2025 on the grounds that said order has been passed without hearing him and matter is still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), therefore, the review petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant has no locus even to question the order as passed by this Court on 15.07.2025, therefore, this review petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the review petition and original writ petition including order dated 15.07.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3028/2025. 5. Perusal of original writ petition including order dated 15.07.2025 would reveal that though the applicant was party as respondent No.3 in the writ petition, but neither he was noticed nor opportunity of hearing was given to him, further the fact that matter is still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has not been disclosed by the respondent- Bank at the time of hearing. 3 6. Since the order impugned dated 15.07.2025 has been passed without hearing the petitioner, who was one of the respondent in the original writ petition and the matter is still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), therefore, the review petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and writ petition is re-called/restored to its original number and list it today itself. Parties are directed to appear in the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.3028/2025. Registry is directed to mention the names of all parties and their respective counsels in the cause list while listing the case. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-