DILIP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15034 of 2017 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition preferred by the original writ petitioners-respondent Nos. 5 and 6, herein, and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna dated 01.09.2017 passed in Review Application No. 02 of 2017, by which the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T. Patna dismissed the said review application as not maintainable, and thereafter, remanded the matter to the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Patna for considering the said review application in accordance with law and on merits, the original respondent No. 5 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal, in nutshell, are as under: 2. 1. That one Om Prakash Singh (now deceased) and father of respondent No.5, herein, had taken housing loan from various Banks including the UCO Bank. That the dwelling house in which the borrower as well as the original writ petitioners were residing was mortgaged. That SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the UCO Bank and finally the mortgaged property came to be auction/sold on 27.05.2016. That the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'Original writ petitioners') therefore, filed SARFAESI Application No. 209 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on 30.11.2016 contending, inter alia, that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were not served. As there was delay in preferring an appeal, the original writ petitioners field a limitation petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and requested to condone the delay of 15 days. The DRT dismissed the said SARFAESI Application No. 209 of 2016 along with limitation petition, holding that there was suppression of material fact as they had not disclosed the material fact. That thereafter, the original writ petitioners field a review application being R.A. No. 02 of 2017 to review and recall the order dated 09.01.2017. That the said review application was filed under Rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to as 'the 1993 Rules') read with sub-section 7 of Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'). That by the order dated 01.09.2017, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Patna dismissed the said application as not maintainable on the ground that there is no provision in the SARFAESI Act for review of the judgment and order passed in SARFAESI Application by the Tribunal. 2. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned DRT, Patna dated 01.09.2017 passed in R.A. No. 02 of 2017, dismissing the review application as maintainable, the original writ petitioners preferred the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 15034 of 2017 before this Court. That by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 considering the provisions of Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDB Act') read with Rule 5-A of the 1993 Rules, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned DRT rejecting the review application as maintainable and has remanded the review application directing the learned DRT to disposed of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original respondent No.5, purchaser of the mortgaged property purchased in an auction in a proceeding initiated by the UCO Bank, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.