1 2025:CGHC:30754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 165 of 2025 M/s T.S. Traders Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Ghoshal S/o Shri Paritosh Ghoshal Guarantor Smt. Anita Ghoshal Both Proprietor And Guaranter R/o E.W.S.- 32, Housing Board Colony, Bandhapara, Ward Kondagaon, Tehsil- Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Indian Overseas Bank Through Authorized Officer Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Lal Mani Yadav, Aged About 44 Years, Office At- Regional Office, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenueand Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Cum District Magistrate Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 - The Tehsildar Tehsil- Kondagaon, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 6 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 04.07.2025 1. By this petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 05.05.2025 passed in WPC No.2276 of 2025 by which this Court had disposed of the writ petition while directing the Collector, Kondagaon YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.05 17:07:40 +0530 2 as well as the Tahsildar, Kondagaon to take appropriate and necessary steps in compliance of the provisions of Sections 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘Act of 2002’) and in pursuance of the order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) to hand over the possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner within a period of 25 days from the date of the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Bank/respondent No.1 was granted C.C. Limit to the petitioner herein/review petitioner towards loan amount of Rs.14,00,000/- on the basis of the stock available in the shop owned by him and for which, respondent No.1 was provided with Insurance Policy for all the liabilities and the insured amount was Rs. 20,00,000/-. On 06.04.2021 at about 03.00 AM, on account of fire accident, all the stocks burnt and the applicant sustained damages for which the petitioner immediately informed to the Police Station, lodged FIR upon which the Police Station Officer registered FIR and prepared a Panchnama. The petitioner informed about the incident to the Insurance Company namely Universal Sompo General Insurance Company, Raipur and also to the Bank regarding the fire accident. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a claim with regard to the above incident before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company vide letter dated 26.05.2022, refused the claim of the petitioner, as such, it has submitted a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur against the Insurance Company as well as 3 the Bank bearing Case No.CC/67/2022. After a full-fledged hearing, the District Forum has passed an order dated 04.07.2024, allowing the complaint filed by the present petitioner against the Insurance Company and Bank whereby the Bank was directed to allow the rebate on interest and penalty to the present petitioner till the deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company. 3. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an appeal against the above order dated 04.07.2024 before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur bearing Appeal No.FA/24/577 and prior to filing of the appeal, Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bastar, at Jagdalpur. Meanwhile, the Bank initiated the proceedings against the present petitioner under the provision of the Act of 2002 by filing an application for physical possessions of the mortgaged property, upon which respondent No.3 has passed the order dated 08.04.2024 for handing over the possession of the questioned mortgaged property. Against which, the present petitioner immediately approached before learned Debt Recovery Tribunal M. P. & Chhattisgarh wherein an interim order has been passed in his favour on 20.01.2025. 4. Thereafter, the Bank/respondent No.1 approached this Court and suppressed the material fact with regard to the pendency of the case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur and also suppressed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bastar at Jagdalpur and obtained an impugned order dated 05.05.2025. Based upon the said order dated 05.05.2025, the 4 Tehsildar. Kondagaon has passed an order dated 30.06.2025 and directed the present petitioner to hand over the possession of the mortgaged property. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary, illicit, unlawful and bad in law. He further submits that the petitioner has filed application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is pending under consideration and respondent No.1 has already appeared before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the pending matter. It has been contended that respondent No.1 has deliberately suppressed a material fact from the present Court that a case remains pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur as well as the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bastar, this Court has passed an order dated 05.05.2025 directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to take appropriate and necessary steps in compliance of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 as well as in pursuance of the order 08.04.2024 to hand over the possession of the mortgaged property to the Bank within a period of 25 days from the date of order dated 05.05.2025 and consequently, the Tehsildar has passed an order dated 30.06.2025 to take over physical possession of the mortgaged property. It has been further contended that the present petitioner had approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the Insurance Company and Bank wherein an order dated 04.07.2024 was passed in favor of the present petitioner and feeling aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal 5 Commission Raipur and prior to filing of appeal. the Insurance Company has deposited an amount of Rs. 10 lacs before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bastar, at Jagdalpur. It has been submitted that Section 34 of the Act of 2002 evidently bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts when the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal is empowered by the Act to determine. Reliance has been placed upon the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others reported in 2024 (6) SCC 579, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has strictly clarified that when there is availability of statutory remedies, the High Courts have limited scope to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the present petitioner, as such, the instant review petition is maintainable on the grounds of suppression and error on the face of the records. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 is liable to be recalled. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Bank opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the review petitioner and submits that after taking into consideration all the issues raised in the writ petition, has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the Bank. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by this Court and as such, this review petition deserves to be dismissed. In addition, he placed a document/order-sheet of the DRT, stating that stay application has already been dismissed by the DRT. 6 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the review petition. 8. This Court, after taking note of all the relevant aspects of the matter, had arrived at a finding that the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is very specific and the Collector shall assist the Bank or the Financial Institution for taking over the possession of the mortgaged property within a stipulated period, but the same has not been followed in the present case till date, though one year has already lapsed and hence, the Collector, Kondagaon as well as the Tahsildar, Kondagaon was directed to take appropriate and necessary steps in compliance of the provisions of Sections 14 of the Act of 2002 and in pursuance of the order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) to hand over the possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner within a period of 25 days from the date of the order. 9. 9. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the attempt of the review petitioner is to re-agitate the issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. Even otherwise, the law with regard to review of an order is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, which is missing in this case. 7 10. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope of ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the review petitioner has not produced any ground for review. It appears that the review petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 11. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the review petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari & Others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 and in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd & Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, if so advised, the petitioner may approach before the authority concerned in respect of the proceedings, which has already been initiated. 8 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to deposit the loan amount, as such, this aspect of the matter may be directed to be considered by the authority concerned. Accordingly, the concerned authorities may consider this aspect that the petitioner is ready to deposit the loan amount in question. 14. So far as suppression of material facts are concerned time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has warned the litigants not to suppress the material facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Jayaram and Others vs. Bangalore Developmenet Authority and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has held in paras 10 & 14 as under:- “10. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 14. In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of 9 soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.” 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India EPF Staff Federation vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1629 has held in para 4 that :- “4. The present Special Leave Petitions challenging the orders dated 20th March, 2024 and 25th April, 2024 was filed on 14th June, 2024. The Delhi High Court's website shows that on 3rd May, 2024, the petitioner moved an application being CM Application No. 26033/2024 for early hearing of the Petition. It was obvious that the prayer for early hearing was made as the interim relief was refused and a longer date in September, 2024 was fixed. The order dated 3rd May, 2024 passed on the said application shows that the Advocate appearing for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for some time, did not press the said application and, therefore, the same 10 was dismissed. Therefore, the High Court directed that the case shall be listed on 5th September, 2024. Most importantly, in these Special Leave Petitions, which are filed on 14th June, 2024, the material fact of filing CM Application No. 26033/2024 was suppressed and even the order dated 3rd May, 2024 passed on the said application was suppressed.” 16. Therefore where, material facts are suppressed, then the Court can refuse to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. In the case at hand, respondent No.1-Bank (petitioner of WPC No.2276 of 2025) was under obligation to state correct facts of the case, which he has deliberately suppressed, which is serious matter of concern. The proceeding pending before the DRT must be stated in clear terms. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the suppression of material fact by the respondent No.1-Bank, who is petitioner in WPC No.2276/2025) is a misconduct and this Court takes a serious note of the aforesaid conduct with regard to suppression of material fact and in order to discourage such practice, this Court deems it proper to impose an cost upon the respondent No.1-Bank to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for acting mischievously with the Court. The respondent No.1-Bank is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Registrar General shall not only initiate proceedings for recovery of cost, but shall also register a case for contempt of Court. 11 17. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for necessary action and compliance. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh