IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No. 36 of 2008 Date of decision : 23.4.2009 Tej Straw Board (Pvt.) Ltd. and another …Petitioners. Versus State Bank of India and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Petitioner No.2 in person. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this Review Petition, the petitioners have prayed that the order passed by us on 23.10.2007 dismissing CWP No. 422 of 2006 be recalled. Even a bare perusal of the review petition shows that the petitioners have not alleged that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners had admittedly taken a loan from the respondent-Bank. They thereafter obtained additional loan from the bank and provided House No.3086, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, as a collateral security for this additional loan. When the dues of the bank were not paid, a Civil Suit for recovery of the loan amount was filed, which was decreed by the learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan. In the writ petition, the petitioners had prayed that the communication of the respondent-Bank declining to settle their claim on one time settlement basis be quashed and a direction be given to the bank to consider their case under the one time settlement scheme. It is important to note that though it was alleged 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 that the decree obtained by the Bank against the petitioners was a fraudulent one but no prayer was made that the said decree be declared to be nonest and void. This petition was dismissed by us on 23.10.2007 after considering all the points raised before us vide our judgement delivered in Court in the presence of the parties. By means of this review petition, the petitioners basically allege that the decree passed against them by the bank was a fraudulent decree and that the property in question was never mortgaged with the bank in respect of the loan amount due. This point was not raised before us at that stage. In fact, this point could not have been raised because the petitioners cannot in the same breath urge that the decree is a fraud and also urge that the bank should be directed to settle the claim payable under the decree in accordance with the one time settlement scheme. The claim of the petitioners had been rejected by the bank on the ground that the petitioners had tried to defraud the bank by entering into a family settlement by arbitration in which the mortgaged property was allegedly allotted to the share of one Ms. Sonia Bakshi, niece of petitioner No.2. The bank rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that since they had tried to transfer the mortgaged property they could not be given any benefit. After considering all the prayers raised, we had rejected the petition and we upheld the contention of the bank that the case of the petitioners was of malfeasance and therefore the petitioners’ case did not fall under the guidelines framed by the Reserve Bank of India. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 23rd April, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™