1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.11/2009 (State Bank of Patiyala Vs. Lal Chand) Date of order : 09.03.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. R.K. Singhal, for the petitioner. It is very strange that this review petition has been filed by the petitioner without filing any affidavit of earlier counsel to show that any arguments was advanced before this Court when the writ petition was decided. It is very strange that earlier another counsel was appearing on behalf of the Bank in the writ petition filed by petitioner - Lal Chand. The petitioner – Lal Chand preferred the writ petition before this Court for the grievance of illegal recovery made against him by the Bank and the following prayer was made in the writ petition : “That the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and, the notice dated 14th of July, 2007 (Annexure- 3) and dated 20th of September, 2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside and 2 proceedings under the Act of 2002 and Rules of 2002 against the present petition initiated by the respondent bank may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary, the same may kindly be quashed and set- aside. The respondent bank may be directed to consider the application dated 3rd of December, 2007 (Annexure-5) of the petitioner and respondent may further directed to not dispossess to the petitioner from the disputed residential house of the petitioner. That if during the pendency of the writ petition the disputed residential house of the petitioner auctioned and possession of the disputed residential house be taken from the petitioner, the same may be ordered to be given to the petitioner and the auction may be declared illegal and arbitrarily and same may be quashed and set aside.” On 15.1.2009, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that substantial amount has already been deposited and the petitioner will deposit remaining amount within a period of three months from today. When this statement was made before this Court for depositing the entire outstanding amount then in presence of counsel for Bank, the following order was passed : “In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, petitioner is permitted to deposit the remaining amount within a period of three months. Upon 3 depositing the said amount, the property of petitioner may be released. However, it is made clear that if petitioner fails to deposit the due amount within the stipulated time, then respondents are free to proceed in the matter for finalization of the property in question. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.” The aforesaid order was made in the interest of the Bank because the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank for recovery against the petitioner and the petitioner made request for depositing the entire amount within a period of three months. Therefore, there was no question for adjudicating the matter but inspite of the fact that the above order was passed by this Court in presence of counsel for the Bank, this application for review has been filed. In para 4 of the review application, it is stated by the Bank that “at the time of admission arguments the counsel for the non-petitioners- applicants had argued before the court on the objections taken by the applicants in their reply to the writ petition but the same were neither considered nor dealt with by this court which has resulted into the passing of a judgement which could not have been passed on account of availability of statutory alternative remedy of filing appeal u/s 17 of the 4 SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the petitioner-respondent as well as on account of petitioner-respondent in concealing material facts from the court which disentitled him to be granted any relief under the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.” Further, in ground No.3 of the application, it is stated that “the judgment passed by learned single judge has resulted into passing a judgement in favour of the petitioner-respondent and against the non- petitioners-applicants without any adjudication being made in relation to the acts of the applicants in the matter of taking proceedings against the petitioner- respondent under Sec. 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In case the judgment under review is not reviewed or recalled the very purpose of enacting the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the rules made there under shall be frustrated in every case by the borrowers by making an offer of making the remaining payment which will render the SARFAESI Act, 2002 Act meaning less and no secured creditor shall like to take proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against any borrower nor the auction purchasers shall muster courage to bid in the auction proceedings held by the secured creditors for selling the property of the defaulting borrowers.” It is very strange that whole purpose of enacting the Act of 2002 is to recover the money from the borrower and in this matter a specific prayer has been made by the petitioner-respondent that he is 5 ready to deposit the entire amount. It is also made clear that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 12.12.2007, an interim order was passed by which it was observed that the house of the petitioner shall not be put to an auction provided, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.70,000/- within a period of one month from the date of this order. Meaning thereby from the date of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was ready to deposit the entire amount and he made prayer for depositing Rs.70,000/- on 12.12.2007. Therefore, gathering the intention of the petitioner to deposit the amount, it was felt appropriate by this Court to pass an order that if the petitioner deposits the remaining amount within a period of three months then his property may be released otherwise action may be taken against the petitioner by the respondent Bank. In my opinion, there was no necessity to adjudicate the matter because whole purpose of the Act of 2002 enacted by the legislature is to recover the money from the borrower and petitioner was ready to deposit the amount. Hence, the prayer for review of order dated 15.1.2009 made by Bank is very strange. It appears that the Bank does not want to recover the money and only wants to crush the borrowers. Further, without filing any affidavit of counsel who was appearing earlier in the writ petition to the effect that he has argued the matter before this Bench and matter was not adjudicated, this review petition has been filed. 6 In my opinion, no case is made out for review or recalling the order dated 15.1.2009 because whole purpose of taking action against the petitioner by the Bank is to recover the amount and not to crush him and while taking into consideration this fact, the order dated 15.1.2009 was passed by this Court in the interest of justice. Accordingly, there is no force in the review petition filed by the Bank. Hence, the review petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun