M.C Jain, J. (Chairman):— This is an appeal by the Punjab National Bank against the order dated September 25, 2002, passed by the DRT, Chandigarh, rejecting its application purportedly made under section 19(25) read with section 26(2) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, for the amendment of recovery certificate made in pursuance of a decree in O.A No. 144 of 1998 passed by the DRT, Jaipur.
2. The facts are that O.A No. 144 of 1998, in question was decided by the DRT, Jaipur, by judgment dated October 27, 1999. It was decreed against the concerned defendants/respondents for recovery of Rs. 4,44,60,002.08. Recovery certificate was drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur. The bank made an application, the order passed whereupon has given rise to this appeal, praying for suitable amendment in the recovery certificate along with the amendment of relief clause of the judgment and the order passed by the DRT. According to the bank, there was clerical error in the recovery certificate as the same was not in consonance with the finding of the Tribunal. Several banks/financial institutions had advanced loan facilities to the borrowers. The Punjab National Bank along with defendant No. 4 (State Bank of India) formed the consortium of banks. The contention of the bank was that defendants Nos. 5 and 6 (IFCI and ICICI respectively) did not even present their case and remained ex parte before the Tribunal below, but in the relief clause as well as in the recovery certificate it had mistakenly been mentioned that the applicant (appellant herein) is entitled to receive the loan amount from the sale proceeds of the property after satisfying the charge of defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6. It was pointed out that in the discussion of issue No. 1, the DRT had mentioned that it had been agreed upon by the applicant-bank (Punjab National Bank) and the State Bank of India (defendant No. 4) that they would advance credit facilities to defendant No. 1 on 50 : 50 ratio and accordingly different loan agreements were executed for advancing loan. However, in the order part, it was held that the applicant-bank (Punjab National Bank) would be entitled to receive sale proceeds of the property after satisfying the loan of defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
3. The Tribunal below found that there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake capable of being corrected, and rejected the application of the appellant-bank (Punjab National Bank). Aggrieved, it has preferred this appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. M.U Khan, counsel for the appellant-Punjab National Bank and Mr. S.L Gupta, counsel for the fourth respondent-State Bank of India.
5. It is to be pointed out that the recovery certificate is to abide by the final order passed in the O.A No doubt, as per section 26(2) of the RDDBFI Act, the Presiding Officer has the power to withdraw the certificate or correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate. This power, however, is limited to the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes only. This provision is akin to section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes connote those of adding up, subtraction, multiplication or division. There was no such clerical or arithmetical mistake in the final order passed in the O.A, according to which the recovery certificate was prepared. If the appellant (Punjab National Bank) was aggrieved of the final order passed in the O.A, it had the right to prefer an appeal thereagainst, but it could not pray for upturning the central core of the judgment under the garb of seeking correction of clerical or arithmetical nature.
6. The matter may be judged from another angle. Even if it is taken that the application made by the appellant before the Tribunal below was one for the review of the final order passed in the O.A, then also no relief can be granted to it in this appeal. The reason may be stated. Section 22(2)(e) of the RDDBFI Act provides that the DRT and DRAT have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in respect of reviewing its decision.
7. That means to say, the provisions of the CPC would apply in the matter of review. Order XLVII, rule 7 of the CPC clearly provides that an order of the court rejecting the application of review shall not be appealable, but an order granting the application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. So, this appeal is not competent against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal below declining to review the final order passed in O.A
8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.