CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6615 OF 2012
Date: 21.01.2014
Between:
M/s. Soham Engineering Constructions A partnership firm represented by its Partners Mr. V.V.Narayana and Mr. V.V.Sridhar Rao and two others .. Petitioners And The Authorised Officer Vijaya Bank Vijay Nagar Colony Hyderabad – 46 and another .. Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6615 OF 2012
ORDER:
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2012 in Review Petition No.2 of 2012 in S.A.No.120/2011 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.
The petitioners herein filed S.A. No.120/2011 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) with a prayer to declare the possession notice dated 11.01.2011 issued by the respondents herein (herein after referred to as “the Bank”) as well as the tender cum public auction notices dated 20.01.2011 and 04.03.2011 as arbitrary and illegal.
After hearing both the parties the Tribunal by order dated 09.10.2012 dismissed S.A. No.120/2011. Subsequently the revision petitioners filed Review Petition No.2 of 2012 to review the order dated 09.10.2012 contending that the order in S.A.No.120/2011 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The said review petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 10.12.2012 and aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset raised an objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that as against the order under revision an appeal lies to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
However, it is sought to be contended by the revision petitioners that as per Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 22(2) (e) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 the Debts Recovery Tribunal is bound by the procedure laid down by the C.P.C. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Order XLVII Rule 7 of C.P.C. under which the order of rejection of a review petition is not appealable is attracted. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.
On merits, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order under Revision came to be passed by the Tribunal on an erroneous assumption that no review petition is maintainable in the absence of a specific provision under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. Pointing out that Rule 5-A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 expressly provides for review of an order passed by the Tribunal on account of some mistake of error apparent on the face of the record, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal below committed a grave error in considering the application treating it as an application under Section 142 of C.P.C.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision.
It is no doubt true that the Tribunal below observed that there is no provision for review of order passed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, however at the same time the Tribunal below had gone into the merits of the case and after assigning valid reasons held that the order did not suffer from any error on the face of the record. The Tribunal had also taken note of Rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 and the extent of the power conferred thereunder.
Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal below had dismissed the review petition on an erroneous assumption that there is no provision to review the order passed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
On a careful perusal of the order under Revision, I am satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal below are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and the same warrant no interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petition shall stand closed.
G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.01.2014 MVA
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6615 OF 2012 Dated: 21.01.2014
MVA