1 2025:CGHC:59932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 403 of 2025 1 - Anantpuri Goswami S/o Damodarpuri Goswami Aged About 58 Years R/o 164 Rajeev Gandhi, Ward No. 14, Durg Road, Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) (Respondent No. 5) 2 - Smt. Sunita Goswami W/o Anantpuri Goswami Aged About 53 Years R/o 164 Rajeev Gandhi, Ward No. 14, Durg Road, Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) (Repondent No. 6) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - Au. Small Finance Bank Ltd. Registered Office- 19/a, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan Branch Office- 3rd Floor, Sky Plaza, Gaurav Path, Near Banthia Hospital, Raja Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Manager Dheeraj Pandey, S/o Vivekanand Pandey, Aged About 44 Year, Branch Office- 3rd Floor, Sky Plaza, Gaurav Path, Near Banthia Hospital, Raja Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) 3 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Respondent No. 2) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) 5 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 5/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 10 /12/2025 1. This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 5664/2025 filed by the secured creditor/petitioner therein seeking a direction to the Tehsildar to comply with the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002). 2. This Court, considering the provision under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and further taking note of the fact that the competent authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 i.e. the District Magistrate has passed an order for taking possession of the secured assets on 25.09.2023. However, till filing of the petition in the year 2025, the Tehsildar has not complied with the order and proceeded in accordance with law and therefore, direction was issued to the Tehsildar to comply with the order passed by the learned District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within the specified time. 3. The review application is filed on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. The proceedings filed by applicant is not taken up for hearing. Even interim application is not considered. 4. Perusal of the order-sheet of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal would show that the applicants or their counsel are not appearing and case is getting adjourned when it was listed. Further, the 3 certified copies are obtained month of November, 2025 and since 2023 continuously, no one appeared to press the application. 5. This Court had not considered and decided the rights of the parties on merits, but have only issued a direction for compliance of the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 about 02 years ago, from the date of filing of the writ petition. 6. It is well settled 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 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 and Surendra Kumar Vakil & ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC 126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review petition can be considered and it was observed that 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. 7. In the 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. Considering the grounds raised by applicant in this review petition and taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme 4 Court, this Court is of considered view that applicant failed to point any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 31.10.2025. 9. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY