1 CGHC010234842026 2026:CGHC:32790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 214 of 2026 1 - Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (Arcil) Through Its General Manager, Registered Office- The Ruby, 10th Floor 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai -400028. ... Petitioner versus 1 - G Krishna Murty S/o G.T. Babu, Aged About 49 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Kurty ), R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Santoshi Nagar, Khamtari 2, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Smt. G. Jyoti, W/o G Krishna Murty Aged About 44 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Murthy ), R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Santoshi Nagar, Khamtari 2, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Grihum Housing Finance Ltd. Through Its General Manager (Formerly, Poonawala Housing Finance Ltd.) Reg. Office 602, 6th Floor, Zero One It Park Survey No. 79/1, Ghorpadi Mundhwa Road Pune 411036 Branch Office At Devendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : None. RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.07.30 18:53:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed seeking following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to allow the instant review petition and recall the order dated 24.04.2026 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1859 of 2026 (Annexure P-1) and list the matter for further hearing in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24.04.2026 has been obtained by the writ petitioners by suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the effect of the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 311/2025. It is submitted that the Tribunal had neither quantified the settlement amount at Rs.11,23,000/- nor directed the petitioner to accept the said amount in full and final settlement. The Tribunal had merely permitted the borrowers to approach the concerned Financial Institution for settlement in accordance with the RBI Guidelines. It is further submitted that this Court proceeded on an erroneous premise while passing the order dated 24.04.2026, which constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. Learned 3 counsel also submits that the writ petitioners concealed the actual outstanding dues of Rs.42,40,262.12/- (as on 19.01.2026) and wrongly projected their liability as Rs.11,23,000/-. He further submits that the impugned order grants substantive relief without any concluded settlement and, if allowed to continue, would cause serious prejudice and financial loss to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 24.04.2026 be reviewed and/or recalled. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 5. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through 4 LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 6. The grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed in limine. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju