THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A N D THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Review WPMP.No.18728 of 2014 in W.P.No.14126 of 2009 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This review petition is preferred by the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.14126 of 2009. The 1st respondent herein instituted the said writ petition. The 2nd respondent herein namely State Bank of Hyderabad has granted certain advances to the 3rd respondent – a partnership firm at Aurangabad, Maharashtra State. The said transaction was secured by a mortgage deed and the 3rd respondent – principal borrower had failed to repay the said debt. The bank has filed O.A.No.83-A/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. After necessary adjudication, a recovery certificate was issued on 22.04.2002 in a sum of Rs.37.48 lakhs. Since the mortgaged property is located at Hyderabad, the recovery certificate was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. That was numbered as R.P.No.369/2002. The present review petitioner filed a claim petition bearing C.P.No.12 of 2003 claiming independent ownership and possession over the schedule property. That C.P.No.12 of 2003 was dismissed on 05.11.2003. Though the review petitioner made an attempt to save the schedule property from being sold in auction by offering a proposal for liquidating the debt and deposited a sum of Rs.6.75 lakhs with the bank, to establish his genuine desire in that respect. Since the review petitioner failed to deposit the balance debt amount and fulfill the obligation undertaken to prevent the schedule property from being put to public auction, the recovery officer issued a notice on 12.06.2007 directing the review petitioner to take back the amount of Rs.6.75 lakhs deposited by her together with interest accrued thereon as the arrangement of compromise has failed to materialize. Thereafter, the mortgaged property was put to auction on 05.12.2007 and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was the successful bidder, who deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs.23,53,310/- on 20.12.2007. At that stage, the review petitioner preferred R.A.IR.No.7 of 2007 before the DRT, Hyderabad, against the notice issued by the bank on 12.06.2007 to the review petitioner to collect the amount of Rs.6.75 lakhs deposited by her together with interest. Two interlocutory applications No.646 of 2007 and 647 of 2007 were moved therein. I.A.No.646 of 2007 was moved for condoning the delay of 1004 days. I.A.No.647 of 2007 was moved seeking an interim direction to the recovery officer not to confirm the sale of the mortgaged property held on 05.12.2007. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.19188 of 2008. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 05.09.2008 directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the appeal – R.A.IR No.7 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible. During the course of hearing of R.A.IR.No.7 of 2007, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has pointed out that the present review petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the order dated 05.11.2003 dismissing her claim petition No.12 of 2003 moved in R.P.No.369 of 2002 and in the absence of any challenge to such an order, the R.A.IR.No. 7 of 2007 could not have been entertained and stay of confirmation of sale could not have been ordered by the DRT. Realizing the difficulty, the review petitioner sought permission for withdrawing I.A.No.646 of 2007 with liberty to prefer an appeal against the order dated 05.11.2003 dismissing C.P.No.12 of 2003. Acceding to that request the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the I.A.No.646 of 2007 as withdrawn on 02.02.2009. However, it ordered the appeal R.A.IR.No.7 of 2007 to be assigned a regular number. Accordingly, the said appeal is numbered as R.A.No.2 of 2009. Since the sale that was conducted on 05.12.2007 has not been confirmed, W.P.No.14126 of 2009 has been preferred by the 1st respondent herein. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 30.04.2010. During the course of that order, it was noticed that the review petitioner herein has preferred R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 against the order dated 05.11.2003 in C.P.No.12 of 2003. Hence it was ordered by this Court that the sale that took place on 05.12.2007 may be confirmed and the said confirmation of sale will abide by the result in R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 preferred by the present review petitioner against the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting her C.P.No.12 of 2003 in R.P.No.369 of 2002. Aggrieved by this part of the order dated 30.04.2010, the present review petition is filed. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the review petitioner, Sri Ch.Siva Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Bank, and Sri Vedula Srinivas, on behalf of the successor-in-interest of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the review petitioner, would contend that this Court has not right or jurisdiction to order for confirmation of the sale of the schedule property that took place on 05.12.2007. He would further contend that by virtue of this order the right of the review petitioner to secure the necessary relief in the appeal, R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 preferred by her against the orders dated 05.11.2003 dismissing her C.P.No.12 of 2003 becomes illusory. On behalf of the bank Sri Ch.Siva Reddy would submit that the review petitioner has been delaying the process of recovery of money by the bank on one pretext or the other and the claim petition moved by the present review petitioner, C.P.No.12/2003 was dismissed as long back as on 05.11.2003 itself and no steps whatsoever have been taken by the review petitioner, promptly to call in question the correctness of the said order dated 05.11.2003. Further, the review petitioner with a view to save the schedule property from being put to auction sale has proposed to liquidate the debt and deposited only a sum of Rs.6.75 lakhs to enable the bank to consider her offer, but thereafter failed to comply with the terms of offer and lived up to the obligation undertook therein and consequently the bank has issued a notice to her on 12.06.2007 to take return of Rs.6.75 lakhs deposited by her together with interest accrued thereon and nearly 6 months thereafter, the schedule property was put to auction on 05.12.2007 and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has emerged as the successful bidder and he deposited the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.23,53,310/- on 20.12.2007, well within the time stipulated for such deposit and hence this Court is justified in ordering the sale to be confirmed in favour of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. But at the same time, the Court has taken necessary precaution to observe that any such confirmation of sale would abide by the result in the appeal R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 preferred by the review petitioner herein against the orders passed on 05.11.2003 rejecting her claim petition C.P.No.12 of 2003 in R.P.No.369 of 2002 and thus protected the interest of the review petitioner as well. Sri Ch.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Bank, had also contended that R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner herein was returned by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by its order dated 22.11.2011 and long thereafter the present review petition is moved in this Court on 06.07.2012 without in any manner disclosing the fact that no appeal against the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting C.P.No.12 of 2003 is pending and hence the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14126 of 2009 on 30.04.2010 is perfectly valid order, which does not require any reconsideration. Sri Vedula Srinivas, on behalf of the successor-in-interest (now impleaded as 11th respondent) of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, would contend that there is no explanation offered by the present review petitioner as to why the review petition is moved only on 06.07.2012 seeking review of the order passed on 30.04.2010 for the extraordinary delay that occurred in the process. It is further contended by Sri Vedula Srinivas that in the guise of this review application an attempt is made for rehearing of the entire matter, which is wholly impermissible under law. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel, has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in “Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013 (8) SCC 320)”, in support of his above plea. During the course of the order passed in W.P.No.14126 of 2009 on 30.04.2010 this Court has noticed that the claim petition-C.P.No.12 of 2003 filed by the present review petitioner was rejected as long back as on 05.11.2003 and no steps have been taken to call in question the said order promptly. This Court has also noticed that the subsequent offer made to liquidate the debt has also not been lived up to by the review petitioner. In those circumstances, the bank by its order dated 12.06.2007 suggested to the review petitioner to take return of Rs.6.75 lakhs deposited by her together with interest accrued thereon as the attempt to save the property from being sold has not fructified. 6 months thereafter the schedule property is put to auction sale on 05.12.2007 and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has emerged as successful bidder and he has deposited the entire sale consideration amount by 20.12.2007 itself. Therefore, he was not at fault in any manner and hence the most equitable order has been passed by this Court on 30.04.2010 in W.P.No.14126 of 2009. The confirmation of sale of the schedule property was ordered to abide by the result in R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 preferred against the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting C.P.No.12 of 2003, though the said appeal was preferred nearly 6 years later to the date of the order. In fact the order passed in W.P.No.14126 of 2009 on 30.04.2010 has not vanquished any rights of the present review petitioner and on the other hand the confirmation of sale in favour of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was ordered to abide by the result in R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 preferred by the present review petitioner. As it turned out now R.A.IR.No.5 of 2009 has been returned to the present review petitioner by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad by its order 22.11.2011. By now that order has become final. Consequently, no appeal against the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting C.P.No.12 of 2003 is pending as on 06.07.2012, the date on which the present review petition is moved. When once the claim petition filed by the petitioner in C.P.No.12 of 2003 in R.P.No.369 of 2002 is rejected as long back as on 05.11.2003 the present review petitioner cannot make any grievance out of the sale of the schedule property carried out by the bank for realizing its mortgage debt. At the sale conducted on 05.12.2007, the 1st respondent has emerged as successful bidder, he had deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs.23,53,310/- promptly. Hence, he was not at all at fault. Hence, the Debt Recovery Tribunal could not have delayed the confirmation of the sale. If there is any fault, it would lie at the door step of the review petitioner. This review petition is filed only on 06.07.2012 i.e. more than two years after W.P.No.14126 of 2009 was decided by this Court. There is no explanation offered as to why the petitioner took more than two years to file the present review petition. A feeble attempt is made to throw the blame on the learned counsel who previously pursued W.P.No.14126 of 2009. It is appropriate to notice that on 30.10.2009, during the course of hearing of W.P.No.14126 of 2009 this Court passed an order inter alia observing that in the interest of justice and with a view to compensate the writ petitioner/auction purchaser, we directed the present review petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- within a period of 6 weeks and upon such deposit being made the bank shall pay the said amount to the auction purchaser and the amount of Rs.23,53,310/- deposited by him can also be returned. However, the present review petitioner has not complied with this order. It was, therefore, more than clear to us that the review petitioner does not have the necessary wherewithal to prevent the sale of the schedule property to take place for realizing the mortgage debt of the bank. Hence, we ordered the auction sale to be confirmed as the writ petitioner was actually suffering for no fault of his. But, yet, we ordered the said sale to abide by the result of the appeal preferred by the review petitioner against the order of rejection of her claim petition C.P.No.12 of 2003 on 05.11.2003. It is the review petitioner who failed to pursue the said appeal. Even otherwise in all fairness the review petitioner ought to have disclosed in the present review petition that no appeal preferred against the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting her claim petition – C.P.No.12 of 2003 in R.P.No.369 of 2002 is pending. There is no whisper of the same and hence we have no hesitation to hold that the present review petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing a very vital information from being disclosed. When once the Debt Recovery Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the review petitioner as long back as on 05.11.2003, she cannot legitimately object to the Bank in putting the mortgaged property to sale for realizing it’s debt. The auction sale took place on 05.12.2007. Hence, there was no error committed by this Court in ordering the said sale to be confirmed subject to the result of the belated appeal, R.A.IR No.05 of 2009, preferred against the order dated 05.11.2003. Learned counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas is right in his submission that the present review application is only a camouflaged attempt at rehearing of the entire matter. The law on the subject is very clear that no rehearing of a matter, which is already decided on merits after due deliberations, is permissible and no review petition would lie for achieving such an objective. The review of an earlier order can be undertaken only upon an error committed by the Court earlier, which is apparent on record. Except pointing out that the petitioner in the review petition would not be able secure any relief in the appeal against the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting her C.P.No.12 of 2003, the learned counsel for the review petitioner Sri Prabhakar Sripada had not demonstrated any material error in the order passed by this Court on 30.04.2010 in W.P.No.14126 of 2009. When once the claim petition of the petitioner herein is dismissed as early as on 05.11.2003, we fail to understand as to how this Court was in error in passing an equitable order on 30.04.2010 while deciding W.P.No.14126 of 2009. By throwing blame on the previous counsel, no review of an earlier order can be sought for. It is obvious to us that the present review petition is one more attempt made by the petitioner herein to somehow or the other delay the bank from realizing the debt due to it by putting the mortgaged security to sale. There is no merit in this review petition and hence we have no hesitation to dismiss the same. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) payable to the Bank. _______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO ____________________________________ JUSTICE Dr.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO 20.03.2015. Ksp THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A N D THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Review WPMP.No.18728 of 2014 in W.P.No.14126 of 2009 Order of the bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) Date:20.03.2015 KSP