Sanjay Kumar Patel vs Canara Bank

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
1 RP-189-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 189 of 2025
SANJAY KUMAR PATEL
Versus
CANARA BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Umesh Shrivastava and Shri Anand Kumar Verma - Advocates
for petitioner.
Shri Amit Khatri - Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari - Government Advocate for respondent nos.2 and
3/State.
Shri Dileep Pandey - Advocate for intervenor/successful auction
purchaser.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
This review petition is pending since 2025.
Today, Shri Anand Kumar Verma, Advocate appearing on behalf of
petitioner, submits that Shri Umesh Shrivastava, arguing counsel, is busy in
another Court, therefore, matter be placed in second round.
Learned counsel for respondents opposed the contentions on the
ground that this is a delaying tactics. Review petitioner sought review of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
2 RP-189-2025
order dated 21.08.2024 passed in W.P. No.26481/2023 and interim relief in

respect of status quo (regarding possession) obtained on 05.12.2025. When
matter was listed on 13.05.2026, then counsel for petitioner sought
adjournment because he was not ready with the brief. Objection was raised
by the respondents. However, matter was placed on 16.06.2026. On that day
Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate, again sought time and on his request
matter was placed in week commencing 29.06.2026. This adjournment was
given despite the fact that earlier this Court on 13.05.2026 observed that in
case, for any reason, if counsel for petitioner does not appear or seeks
adjournment or the matter is adjourned then Bank shall be at liberty to
proceed immediately for taking possession from the review petitioner. Still,
counsel for petitioner is seeking pass over.
It appears that counsel for petitioner is seeking pass over so that matter
may be adjourned and the Court's time may be consumed in other cases.
Therefore, said contention is rejected.
Matter is placed just after an hour i.e. 12:15 p.m.
Later on :
At this stage, Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner
appeared and advanced arguments.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that there is an
error apparent on the face of record because the scheme, namely
Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Yojana and Mukhyamantri Swarojgar Yojana,
under which loan was granted, the loan amount could have been recovered as
an arrears of land revenue. Therefore, application of Securitisation and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
3 RP-189-2025
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) was barred. He also submits that Collector
rightly passed the order dated 18.08.2023.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank vehemently opposed the
contentions.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for respondent-Bank that
there is no error apparent on the face of record to invoke review
jurisdiction. After passing of order dated 21.08.2024 in W.P.
No.26481/2023, Collector passed the order on the application under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 preferred by Bank vide order dated
06.12.2024. Review petitioner if aggrieved, should have filed the application
under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 before learned DRT, Jabalpur but
he did not prefer to do so.
5. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank also refers the fact that
auction was earlier held and sale certificate was issued on 02.12.2022 in
favour of intervenor Brijesh Tiwari. However, possession could not be
handed over. Therefore, proceedings under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act,
2002 before the District Magistrate was filed for obtaining
possession. Hence, it is a case of granting possession because auction was
already held. Now, intervenor is not enjoying the fruits of property despite
auction held in his favour.
6. It is further submitted that as the contentions raised by review
petitioner regarding maintainability of proceeding before Collector are
concerned, the same are devoid of substance for the reason that Credit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
4 RP-189-2025
Guarantee Fund Scheme (CGFS) for Micro and Small Enterprises

contemplated in Clause 11 (claims/invocation of guarantees) specially Clause
11(b)(iv) contemplates recovery proceedings under Section 13(4) of
SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, contentions as raised by review petitioner
deserve rejection.
7. Heard the rival submissions at length. Record perused.
8. After considering the rival submissions and going through the
impugned order, it appears that there is no error apparent on the face of
record. So far as ground raised by petitioner in respect of maintainability of
application under Sections 13 and 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is concerned
is already decided by the learned Division Bench and thereafter if petitioner
is aggrieved by such finding then it is not the preview of review jurisdiction.
9. Scope of review jurisdiction is well defined. In the case of
Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 ,
principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down.
11. The principles relating to review jurisdiction
may be summarized as follows:
" When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not
be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
5 RP-189-2025
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words “any other sufficient reason” have
been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22)
49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean “a
reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to
those specified in the rule”.
When the review will not be maintainable:
"(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is
not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless
the material error, manifest on the face of
order, undermines its soundness or results
in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected
but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on
the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
6 RP-189-2025
record should not be an error which has to be fished

out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record
is fully within the domain of the appellate Court,
it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the
review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had
been negatived

10. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which
is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous
view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the
category of the appeal.
11. If the facts of the present case are tested on the anvil of law as laid
down by the Apex Court, as referred above, then it appears that review
petitioner has reiterated the grounds, which are raised in the writ petition
before learned Division Bench. Same grounds are decided by Division Bench
already.
12. Even otherwise, after passing of order dated 21.08.2024, Collector
has passed the order on 06.12.2024 and directed to hand over the possession
to the intervenor/auction purchaser then appropriate remedy would had been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66614
7 RP-189-2025
different other than the review jurisdiction. Even otherwise, when sale

certificate is already issued in favour of intervenor Brijesh Tiwari, then Bank
is duty bound to proceed for handing over the possession of the property.
13. After due consideration of the contents of review, no case for
interreference is made out. Review petition is highly misconceived.
However, this Court desist from imposing any cost under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
14. Review petition stands dismissed.

(ANAND PATHAK)
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
sjk
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:47:27