1 2026:CGHC:8284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 42 of 2026 Smt. Seema Pandey W/o Shri Sanjay Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o Lig-51, Deendayal Awas, Bahtarai, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 8) ...Applicant. versus 1 - Bank Of Baroda Through Authorised Officer, Shri Prahlad Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Deo Chandra Jha, Aged About 44 Years, Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office At Bank Of Baroda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Petitioner) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 1) 3 - The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 2) 4 - The Tehsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 3) 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 4) 6 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 5) 7 - M/s Raghav Madhav Associates Through Its Proprietor - Shri Rajneesh Seth, Flat No. 12, Kanha Heritage, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 6) 8 - Shri Rajneesh Seth S/o Shri Jagdish Dayal Seth R/o House No. A-15, Ward No. 3, Near Ganesh Chowk, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 7) --- Respondents 2 For Applicant : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent-Bank : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, PL. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 16.02.2026 1. Applicant has filed this petition seeking review/recall of the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5108/2025 (Bank of Baroda Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors). Relevant portion of said order reads as under: “9. In the case at hand, Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate has passed an order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) under Section 14 of the Act, 2002. However, as of now, more than two years have already been lapsed. Perusal of the documents would show that the Respondent No.3/Tehsildar in compliance of the order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate has not issued memo for taking over the possession of the mortgaged property and further considering the provisions under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and the period prescribed therein, the writ petition at this stage is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents No. 2 & 3 to comply with the order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and conclude the proceedings after giving opportunity of hearing to respondents No.6 to 8, expeditiously, preferably within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this 3 order. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court has heard and decided the writ petition (WPC No.5108/2025) without giving opportunity of hearing to the present review petitioner (respondent No.8 in writ petition). The petitioner is victim of fraud and cheating, however, he never took any loan, he has been fraudulently made Guarantor in loan taken by respondent No. 7 and for his default, he (petitioner) is being made to suffer. The entire facts are well within the knowledge of the Respondent-Bank and despite that, Respondent -Bank choose not to disclose the same while filing the writ petition (WPC No.5108/2025) or at the time of hearing of writ petition and took the order dated 25.09.205 in its favour. Petitioner has already preferred MA No. 51/2025 against the exparte judgment passed by DRT, Jabalpur, (MP), and same is pending consideration and if any action is taken pursuance to the direction passed by this Court, the same shall adversely prejudice the rights of petitioner. The case of fraud and cheating is pending and is under investigation by the EOW, Raipur and same is within the knowledge of the respondent-Bank. The correct facts were not brought into the knowledge of the Court at the time of hearing of writ petition on 25.09.2025. Hence, it is prayed that order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5108/2025 be reviewed/recalled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Bank submits that the present review petition is not maintainable either in law or on the 4 facts and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. After due consideration of the pleadings and documents placed on record, order dated 25.09.2025 has been passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5108/2025. Said order merely directs the competent authorities to comply with the order dated 30.01.2023 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and to conclude the proceedings after affording opportunity of hearing to respondents No.6 to 8, including the present review petitioner, thus, adequate opportunity of hearing has already been safeguarded by this Court in the writ order itself. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the present review petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in law. Order dated 25.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5108/2025 by this Court after due consideration of the material available on record and in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law. Therefore, present review petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the review petition including the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5108/2025. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for rehearing of the matter or for substituting a different view on merits. 7. In the present case, no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated. The order dated 25.09.2025 merely directed compliance of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI 5 Act, 2002 and specifically provided for opportunity of hearing to Respondents No. 6 to 8, including the present review petitioner. 8. The grounds raised in the review petition pertain to disputed questions of fact and issues which may be agitated before the appropriate forum, but do not fall within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. 9. In such circumstances, no ground is made out for entertaining the present review petition. 10. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-