ORDER : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. Since, the issues raised in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.15369 of 2025 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/principal borrowers assailing the judgment dated 05.02.2025 passed in Appeal No.20 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (DRAT), which is preferred against the order dated 08-01-2024 in Review Petition No.3 of 2023 which was filed against the common order dated 22.05.2023 in Securitization Application (SA) No.87 of 2021 and Transfer Securitization Application (TSA) No.4 of 2021 (Old S.A.No.42/2021) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Hyderabad (DRT). W.P.No.24372 of 2025 3. This Writ Petition is filed by the auction-purchaser of ‘A’ schedule property seeking declaration of the action of the respondent No.1 Bank in not delivering the physical possession of the property bearing Shop No.20 situated at ground floor of ‘Bhagyalaxmi Commercial Complex’ admeasuring 162.50 sq. ft. situated at Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad as per the registered Sale Certificate bearing Doc.No.1250 of 2023 dated 12.06.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, with a consequential direction to Respondent-Bank to deliver physical possession of the said property to the petitioner. 4. The facts emanated from the record in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 are that the petitioner No.1 is a manufacturer of jewellery containing gold, silver, precious metals and semi-precious stones, and during the course of business, the 1 st petitioner availed original and renewed credit facilities from the 1 st respondent Bank from time to time. The cash credit limit allowed by the 1 st respondent Bank was Rs.40 crores. Subsequently, it was reduced to Rs.35.35 crores vide Sanction Letter dated 06.12.2019 against the release of the mortgaged properties worth Rs.4.61 crores. 5. On default, the Respondent-Bank issued demand notice dated 11.02.2020 under Section 13 (2) SARFAESI Act (the Act), followed by possession notice dated 24.09.2020 under Section 13 (4) of the said Act. Eventually, an e-auction notice was issued dated 19.02.2021 and sale was conducted on 30.03.2021 in respect of Securitization Schedule (SA) properties. Aggrieved by same, the Principle Borrowers filed S.A.No.87/2021 & TSA No.4/2021 before DRT, Hyderabad, which were dismissed on 22.05.2023 holding Bank’s measures valid. Eventually, an e-auction notice was issued dated 19.02.2021 and sale was conducted on 30.03.2021 in respect of Securitization Schedule (SA) properties. Aggrieved by same, the Principle Borrowers filed S.A.No.87/2021 & TSA No.4/2021 before DRT, Hyderabad, which were dismissed on 22.05.2023 holding Bank’s measures valid. Petitioners then filed Review Petition No.3/2023, which was partly allowed by DRT on 08.01.2024, setting aside the e-auction held on 30.03.2021 in respect of Schedule A & K properties, citing non-compliance with Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (The Rules).The Bank filed Appeal No.20/2024 before DRAT, Kolkata, who by order dated 05.02.2025, allowed the appeal and dismissed the Review Petition holding that DRT had exceeded its review jurisdiction. 6. Aggrieved thereby, borrowers filed W.P.No.15369/2025, while the auction purchaser filed W.P.No.24372/2025 seeking delivery of possession before this court. 7. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.V.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 and respondent Nos.2 to 9 in W.P.No.24372 of 2025, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24372 of 2025 and respondent No.2 in W.P.No15369 of 2025, and Sri B.Shiva Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 8. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Writ Petition ought to be allowed on the ground that firstly, the impugned order passed by the learned DRAT is in contravention of review jurisprudence in India and the spirit of Rule 5 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, secondly, contrary to Rule 8(5) of the Rules, and thirdly, it contravenes binding precedents. It is further contended that under Rule 5A(1) of the DRT Rules, the learned DRT is vested with the power to review an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, whereas the learned DRAT at para-21 of the impugned order erred in holding that a mistake apparent on the face of the record relates only to a typographical or arithmetic error. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others , [ 1980(Supp) SCC 420 ] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that while the power to recall an order is inherently vested with all the Tribunals, the power to recall an order cannot be assumed unless expressly granted by law. 9. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others , [ 1980(Supp) SCC 420 ] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that while the power to recall an order is inherently vested with all the Tribunals, the power to recall an order cannot be assumed unless expressly granted by law. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the DRT at the first instance failed to note that the valuation report obtained by respondent No.1 was prepared much prior to the date of issuance of possession notice dated 24.09.2020, which is in direct contravention of Rule 8(5) of the Rules. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, at paras 19-23 of the order in the Review Petition took note of the error apparent on the face of the record and rectified the previous order in S.A.No.87 of 2021 while noting that the review petitioners made out a valid ground to set aside the e-auction held on 30.03.2021 in respect of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘K’ properties for non-compliance with Rule 8(5) of the Rules. Thus, it is contended that while the scope of the review jurisdiction with the learned DRT is limited, the respondents are incorrect in submitting that the learned DRT exceeded its jurisdiction, as the exercise of powers in the instant case is well within the contours of the statute. 10. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the valuation report of the Bank is dated 24.08.2020, whereas the possession notice itself is dated 24.09.2020 and the e-auction was conducted on 30.03.2021. Therefore, the timeline adopted by the respondent No.1 Bank is in direct contravention of Rule 8(5) of the Act insofar as it precedes the procedure prescribed under Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules and as such, due to such violation, the learned DRT rightly set aside the e-auction in respect of Schedule-‘A’ and ‘K’ properties vide order dated 08.01.2024 in Review Petition No.3 of 2023. 11. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the learned DRAT in Appeal No.20 of 2024 sets a dangerous precedent of curtailing the powers of the adjudicatory Tribunal, in direct contravention of judicial discipline, and a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Pochiraju Industries Vs. 11. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the learned DRAT in Appeal No.20 of 2024 sets a dangerous precedent of curtailing the powers of the adjudicatory Tribunal, in direct contravention of judicial discipline, and a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Pochiraju Industries Vs. Punjab National Bank and others , 2018 SCC Online Hyd 121 categorically held that a reserve price in the e-auction sale notice based on a valuation report published prior to such sale notice cannot be sustained and that under Rule 8(5) of the Rules, the Authorised Officer must obtain a valuation report from an approved Valuer immediately before the proposed sale, which was not done in the present case. He thus contends that non- compliance of the said binding precedent constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. It is therefore contended that the impugned order of the learned DRAT is liable to be set aside. 12. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgments of East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta , 1962 SCC Online SC 142 as well as State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Surendra Mohnot and others , [ (2014) 14 SCC 77 ] , Malleeswari Vs. K.Sugnuna , [2025 SCC Online SC 1927] to contend that the learned DRAT passed an order ignoring the existing binding precedent constituting a manifest and palpable error, which, if not rectified in exercise of review jurisdiction or jurisdiction of recall, would lead to grave miscarriage of justice. 13. On the other hand, Sri B.Shiva Ram Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank contended that order passed in S.A.No.87 of 2021 and TSA No.4 of 2021 dated 22-05-2023 has attained finality since no statutory appeal is filed by the petitioners as mandated under Section 18 of the Act and the learned DRAT has rightly set aside the order of the review petition by categorically holding that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the view taken by the learned DRT is erroneous. 14. 14. Learned counsel further contended that the learned DRAT further held that none of the grounds taken by the review petitioners are covered under the head of the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any sufficient reason or discovery of new and important matter or evidence, and therefore, the contention of the petitioners before the learned DRT in S.A.No.87 of 2021 and TSA No.4 of 2021 as well as the grounds in the Review Petition No.3 of 2023 are similar in nature and the said review application ought not to have been entertained at the first instance. 15. Learned counsel for the Bank further contended that when the petitioners submitted proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) on the basis of the valuation report dated 24.08.2020, they rejected it and proceeded with the auction sale of schedule – ‘A’ and ‘K’ properties and at the time of considering the OTS proposal, no objections were made regarding the valuation report, and hence, the said fact itself speaks that the petitioners have accepted the valuation report without protest and since, the OTS proposal has been rejected by the Bank, the petitioners have now turned back to contend that the valuation report is wrong, which by itself shows the mala fide intention of the petitioners only with a view to defeat the very purpose of the Act. 16. Learned counsel for the Bank further contended that schedule-‘A’ property since the time it was mortgaged in 2003, is only 10 sq. yards and throughout these 15 years, valuation reports clearly indicate the property value was never above Rs.20.00 lakhs and that when a property is sold/auctioned, only land value along with construction cost per square feet is taken into account, but not the rental value or its temporary structures and the valuation report of 2020 is correct, and that the valuation report of the year 2016, which the petitioners seek to rely on, is arrived on wrong calculation method and inadvertently rent factor was taken into consideration and hence, mistake in a valuation report cannot be taken as advantage by the petitioners since valuation report of the year 2020 is based on factual scenario existing till then and no wrongful loss is caused to the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that considering the above facts, the learned DRAT has rightly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order in Review Petition No.3 of 2023 and there is no infirmity in the order passed and the same does not call for any indulgence of the Court. 17. On the other hand, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of auction purchaser vehemently contended that pursuant to the e-auction sale with respect to Schedule ‘A’ property as described in the Appeal on 30.03.2021, the 2 nd respondent in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 became the highest bidder for a total sum of Rs.19,32,000/- and thereafter paid the entire amount, within the stipulated period under the Act and the Rules, to the respondent Bank. The Bank executed and registered a sale certificate on 09.04.2021 in favour of the auction purchaser; however, physical possession of the property has not yet been delivered. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser came to know that owners of the property filed S.A.No.87 of 2021 before the learned DRT and obtained an interim order. Thereafter, the auction purchaser herein got himself impleaded in S.A.No.87 of 2021, which was later dismissed on 22.05.2023. The principal borrowers filed a Review Application in R.A.No.3 of 2023 along with an application for stay of all further proceedings. The learned DRT vide order dated 21.06.2023 granted status quo till filing of the counter and the same was extended from time to time. As such, the auction purchaser knocked the doors of this Court by filing W.P.No.32067 of 2023, wherein this Court vide orders dated 22.11.2023 directed the learned DRT to dispose of the Review Petition R.A.No.3 of 2023 within a period of 6 weeks. 18. Learned counsel for the auction purchaser further contended that the learned DRT passed an order dated 08.01.2024 in Review Application No.3 of 2023 in S.A.No.87 of 2021 setting aside the e-auction held on 30.03.2021 respect of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘K’ properties. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the auction purchaser filed W.P.No.6296 of 2024, wherein this Court while disposing the said Writ Petition by order dated 13.03.2024 granted liberty to file appeal under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the learned DRAT, which was Appeal No. 20 of 2024, and the said appeal was allowed on 05.02.2025 by setting aside the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned DRT. 19. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the learned DRAT, which was Appeal No. 20 of 2024, and the said appeal was allowed on 05.02.2025 by setting aside the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned DRT. 19. Learned counsel further contended that the principal borrower filed W.P.No.15369 of 2025 aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned DRAT wherein initial stay was granted on 28.05.2025, which was not extended subsequently. Thereafter the auction purchaser approached the respondent-Bank requesting to deliver physical possession of the property purchased under e-auction. However, the Bank issued letter on 21.07.2025 assuring delivery of possession to the auction-purchaser, but the same is not delivered. Therefore, having no alternative remedy, the auction purchaser filed the W.P.No.24372 of 2025. 20. Learned counsel for the auction-purchaser further contended that the review petition filed by the principal borrower is not maintainable and it is only to circumvent Section 18 of the Act where there is no Appeal against the final order, Appeal against the Review is not maintainable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the citation in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India , [ (2016) 4 SCC 696 ] wherein at para-30, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the decisions pertaining to maintainability of special leave petition or for that matter appeal have to be seemly understood. Though the decision in Shanker Motiram Nale Vs. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput , [ (1994) 2 SCC 753 ] the two-Judge Bench referred to Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure that bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review, it is not to be understood that the Court has curtailed the plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution by taking recourse to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has to be understood that the Court has evolved and formulated a principle that if the basic judgment is not assailed and the challenge is only to the order passed in review, this Court is obliged not to entertain such special leave petition. The said principle has gained the authoritative status and has been treated as a precedential principle for more than two decades. 21. The said principle has gained the authoritative status and has been treated as a precedential principle for more than two decades. 21. Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel further contended that under the Act, the proceedings are summary in nature, the review is governed by Section 22(2)(e) of the RDB Act 93 and Rule 5-A of the DRT Rules, and therefore contended that the Review Court has erroneously interfered with the initial order passed on 22.05.2023. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another , [ (2024) 2 SCC 362 ] , wherein the Apex Court held that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 22. Learned counsel for the auction-purchaser further relied upon a decision in S.Tirupathi Rao Vs. M.Lingamaiah and others , [2024 SCC Online SC 1764] wherein the Apex Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident. Where, conceivably, two opinions can be formed in a given set of facts and circumstances and one opinion of the two has been formed, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. However, disabusing our mind of such an impression, we have looked into each of the grounds. Not a single ground served consideration to embark on an exercise to review the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 even on the basis of discovery of new and important matter or evidence. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the findings in the Review. 23. Learned counsel for the auction-purchaser further contended on the ground of valuation that the valuation is a fact which cannot be assailed in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there is no rival valuation by the borrowers and it is only agitating that the value taken, which is not worthy of being accepted. 23. Learned counsel for the auction-purchaser further contended on the ground of valuation that the valuation is a fact which cannot be assailed in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there is no rival valuation by the borrowers and it is only agitating that the value taken, which is not worthy of being accepted. In this regard, he relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi and another , [ (2017) 6 SCC 770 ] , Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , [ (2004) 8 SCC 671 ] and Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd Vs. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. , [ AIR 1974 SC 1331 ] 24. Learned Counsel for the auction-purchaser further contended that the stage of objection is at Rule 9(1) or Rule 8(6) and not after auction completed. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment in M.Janardhan Vs. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and others , [MANU/TN/4080/2021] 25. Learned counsel further contended that unless there is any fraud alleged or substantiated, the sale cannot be set aside. It is further contended that the common orders passed in 3 Review Applications, filing of Appeal against one cause of action is hit by the principle of res judicata. In this regard, he relied upon the decision in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple Vs. Meenakshi Ammal , [ (2015) 3 SCC 624 ] 26. It is finally contended that the order passed by the learned DRT in S.A.No.87 of 2021 dated 22.05.2023 has attained finality and that the learned DRT ought not to have reviewed its common order by the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 in R.A.No.3/2023, and sought for a direction to deliver physical possession of the property being Shop No.20 situated at ground floor of ‘Bhagyalaxmi Commercial Complex’ admeasuring 162.50 sq. ft. situated at Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad in favour of the auction purchaser. 27. We have given out earnest consideration to the various contentions vehemently raised by the parties, and perused the record. 28. This Court finds that the principal borrowers do not dispute the availment of loan facilities or creation of mortgages. Their representation to the demand notice was duly considered, and though they approached the Banking Ombudsman, the complaint was closed and no further challenge was pursued. 28. This Court finds that the principal borrowers do not dispute the availment of loan facilities or creation of mortgages. Their representation to the demand notice was duly considered, and though they approached the Banking Ombudsman, the complaint was closed and no further challenge was pursued. The plea regarding fixation of reserve price on an outdated valuation report of 2016 is also untenable, as the DRT itself recorded that a fresh valuation dated 24.08.2020 was relied upon, proximate to the auction notice. 29. Regarding the petitioner’s contention on collusion between the bank and auction purchaser, the DRT held that under the amended Rule 9(4) (effective from 04.11.2016), the extension of time for payment of the 75% balance purchase price is solely between the secured creditor and the auction purchaser, and the borrower has no role in this. Since the extension was granted within the permissible 90-day period (till 30.06.2021, as per the letter dated 05.04.2021), and there was no violation of Rule 9(3) or 9(4), no rights of the principal borrowers were infringed, nor was any prejudice caused. Therefore, the DRT found no merit in the petitioner’s contentions and held that they failed to establish grounds to set aside the Bank's actions under the Act. 30. The only issue pressed in review was that the valuation preceded the possession notice and thereby violated Rule 8(5) of the Rules. The DRT, while entertaining the review, proceeded to reassess the valuation and set aside the auction. The DRAT correctly held that such an exercise amounted to re-appreciation of evidence and exceeded the narrow limits of review jurisdiction. Questions relating to adequacy of valuation and compliance with Rule 8(5) are matters for appeal under Section 18 SARFAESI, not review. 31. This Court concurs with the reasoning of the DRAT, which relied on binding precedents including Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer and another , [ (2024) 2 SCC 362 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “Then gist of the afore-stated is that: (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re- agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, are looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long- drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment or a co- ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 32. This Court observes that DRT, while entertaining Review Petition No.3/2023, went into questions already decided in SA No.87/2021 and TSA No.4/2021. The so-called violation of Rule 8(5), even if arguable, involves appreciation of evidence and interpretation of law, which falls outside the narrow compass of “error apparent on the face of the record.” As held in Sanjay Kumar (supra), review cannot be an appeal in disguise. 33. The Borrowers relied heavily on Pochiraju Industries(Supra). No doubt, the precedent emphasizes the need for valuation immediately before sale. However, the applicability of such precedent goes to merits of the case, and can be canvassed in an appeal under Section 18 SARFAESI. It cannot be treated as an “error apparent” for purposes of review. DRT exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-appreciating valuation evidence. 34. However, the principal borrowers ought to have knocked the doors of appellate authority under Section 18 of the Act within a period of 30 days. Without availing the appropriate efficacious remedy, hurriedly filed review petition and ultimately buried the justice. Since, so much water has flown, the auction purchasers are at liberty to take possession of the subject property. 35. However, the principal borrowers ought to have knocked the doors of appellate authority under Section 18 of the Act within a period of 30 days. Without availing the appropriate efficacious remedy, hurriedly filed review petition and ultimately buried the justice. Since, so much water has flown, the auction purchasers are at liberty to take possession of the subject property. 35. Once the sale certificate is issued and registered, the auction purchaser acquires vested right, and unless fraud or illegality is proved, the sale cannot be disturbed. Since DRAT has already restored the DRT’s original order and set aside the review, the auction purchaser is entitled for the possession. 36. In view of the above discussion, W.P.No.15369 of 2025 filed by the principal borrowers is dismissed. W.P.No.24372 of 2025 filed by the auction-purchaser is allowed. Since, the interim order granted on 28.05.2025 has not been extended subsequently, I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 shall stand closed. 37. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.