Orissa High Court
Udayanath Moharana vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 16 October, 2025
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.32 of 2025
Udayanath Moharana ..... Petitioner
Chakradhari Singh, Advocate
-versus-
Punjab and Sind Bank,
Bhadrak ..... Opp.Party
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No. ORDER
16.10.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner,
Udayanath Moharana, with a prayer to recall the order
dated 09.12.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.30454 of
2024.
While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the
following orders have been passed:
"Heard.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash
the auction sale notice dated 27.02.2024 vide
Annexure-1 passed by the Authorized Officer,
Punjab and Sind Bank (opp. party no.2) and to
Page 1 of 8
declare the physical possession notice vide
Annexure-2 as null and void and to cancel the
auction.
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the
case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. -
Vrs.- Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported
in 2023 LIveLaw (SC) 320 has deprecated the
interference of the High Courts in matters
pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, where efficacious
alternative remedy has been prescribed in the
statute Itself. The Hon'ble Court went on to hold
as follows:
"16. Approaching the High Court for the
consideration of an offer by the borrower
is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ
of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the
absence of any legal right, the Court
cannot exercise the said power. More
circumspection is required in a financial
transaction, particularly when one of the
parties would not come within the purview
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
When a statute prescribes a particular
mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not
be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant
cannot avoid the noncompliance of
approaching the Tribunal which requires
Page 2 of 8
the prescription of fees and use the
constitutional remedy as an alternative,"
In view of the settled position of law as held
hereinabove so also in the case of Hemraj
Ratnakar Salian -Vrs.- HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Reported in (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases
395 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors.
-Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported
in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 782, since
alternative and efficacious remedy is available to
the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain
this writ petition. However, we grant liberty to
the petitioner to approach the DRT by filing an
appeal. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall
be considered in accordance with law. It is made
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case."
Be that as it may, law is well settled that review is
not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review
cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can only be
invoked for the correction of a mistake and not to
substitute a view. Every error whether factual or legal
cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC. To appreciate the principles governing the
power of review under the CPC in the correct perspective, it
would be beneficial for us to reproduce the very provision,
which reads as follows:
Page 3 of 8
1.Application for review of judgment.-- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(Emphasis added) From the terminology of the above provision, it is apparent that to invoke the review jurisdiction, the concerned person must show either a new or important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or the same could not be produced before the Court when the decree was made. The aforesaid jurisdiction can also be put to use when it is shown that the Court passed the Page 4 of 8 impugned decree/order on account of some „error apparent‟ or „mistake‟. Review of a decree/order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be sought as a matter of right. The right to get a decree/order reviewed is subject to the condition that the aggrieved person shows any new matter or evidence, which was not within his knowledge even after exercising due diligence or if he points out any „error apparent‟ or „mistake‟. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas -Vrs.- Union of India reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224 held that the „error‟ contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record.
In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.- Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise Page 5 of 8 its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
In Haridas Das -Vrs.- Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"13....The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the Rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which Page 6 of 8 states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable, the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection...."
In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. -Vrs.- Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"21. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before Page 7 of 8 the Court earlier."
After going through the impugned order under review, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record nor do we find any new matter or evidence which the review petitioner could not have produced before the Court below even after exercising „due diligence‟. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this review petition.
Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Pending interim application, if any, also stands dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Pravakar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:25:43 Page 8 of 8