ORDER 1. This petition seeks review of final order dated 11.4.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2014 of 2023 whereby this Court on a petition filed by the Bank passed the following order : "The short grievance of the petitioner-bank in the present petition is that despite physical possession of the secured asset having been handed over to the petitioner-bank pursuant to an auction and order passed under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the access to the secured asset is blocked by the borrower i.e., respondents No.2 to 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the bank that despite having made written requests to the District Magistrate vide Annexure P/7 and P/8 dated 8.2.2022 and 3.12.2022 respectively, the plea of the bank has fell on deaf ears. On 13.3.2023, the State counsel is asked to seek instructions in the matter. The State counsel seeks further time. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner-bank this petition stands disposed of in the following direction- "(i) The District Magistrate Bhopal is directed to ensure taking appropriate action in terms of the requests made by the petitioner-bank vide Annexure P/7 and P/8 and ensure grant of access to the petitioner-bank to the secured asset in question as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 30 days and report compliance in that regard with the Registry. (ii) in case the compliance report is not made by the District Magistrate the matter be taken up as PUD before the Registry of this Court."" 2. The borrower and the guarantor who are five in number have approached this Court seeking review of the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that the Bank in W.P. No.2014 of 2023 did not disclose the material fact that the question of identity of the secured asset in question was pending adjudication in shape of Securitisation Application No.231 of 2017 before the Jabalpur Bench of Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. 3. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Bank who has been given an advance copy of the petition, does not dispute the fact that the issue of identity of the secured asset is pending before the DRT and that this fact was not disclosed in the writ petition, but contends that the dispute before DRT is pending since 2017 and there is no hope of final verdict in the same as the borrower and guarantor are adopting dilatory tactics. 4. Instead of keeping this petition pending, the appropriate course of action would be to render the decision under review subject to final outcome in S.A. No.231 of 2017. 5. Accordingly, the present review petition stands disposed of with a direction that the execution of the order under review shall remain subject to final outcome in S.A. No.231 of 2017 pending before the Jabalpur Bench of DRT. 6. Since the review petitioners were forced to file this review petition due to the Bank having failed to disclose the material fact in W.P. No.2014 of 2023 about the pendency of S.A. No.231 of 2017, the respondent/Bank should bear the cost of this review petition, which is quantified as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid by the respondent/Bank to petitioners by depositing the same in their bank accounts within a period of thirty (30) days from today. 7. On failure to deposit the cost within the aforesaid period, this case be listed under the caption of "Direction" as PUD for execution qua cost. Satish Agrawal, Umang Goyal and Aditya Nayak for petitioner;