Court holds review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC limited to errors apparent on record; reiterates writ petitioners have efficacious remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal, rejecting fresh cause of action claim based on SARFAESI sale notice
In a significant ruling dated September 14, 2026, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.) dismissed a review petition filed by M/s Soubhagye Road Builders and others challenging a prior judgment that upheld SARFAESI (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) proceedings initiated against them by the Reserve Bank of India.
The review petitioners contended that the Court erred by applying the doctrine of res judicata and constructive res judicata to dismiss their writ appeal, arguing that a fresh cause of action had arisen due to a subsequent SARFAESI sale notice which they claimed was not considered in earlier litigation. They further asserted entitlement to special protections under a 2015 notification issued under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, contending that the secured creditor bank failed to extend mandatory stress-resolution benefits to them as MSMEs. The petitioners argued this substantive right had not been adjudicated previously and thus warranted reopening the matter.
However, the Court reaffirmed that the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is strictly confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record-manifest, self-evident mistakes discernible without elaborate reasoning. It cannot be used to reargue or reopen issues already extensively considered. The Court noted that the earlier judgment had already relegated the petitioners to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), acknowledging the lis was open and unresolved on merits, thus negating the foundational requirement of a final adjudication for res judicata to apply. The purported fresh cause of action based on the sale notice was viewed as a continuation of the original cause of action, and no fresh grounds existed to revisit settled issues.
The Court also emphasized that the writ petitioners possessed an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for adjudication before the DRT, a forum specifically empowered to deal with such disputes. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the SARFAESI proceedings.
In its detailed reasoning, the Court cited the Supreme Court precedents in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, and Indusind Media and Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs to underline the principles governing the scope of review and the doctrine of ratio decidendi. It held that judgments must be understood in the context of the facts involved and cannot be treated as statutes or extended beyond what was actually decided.
The review petition's contention that the DRT lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a constitutionally mandated Advisory Committee under the MSME revival framework was also rejected, with the Court pointing out that such issues had been thoroughly examined in the original judgment and no error apparent on the face of record was demonstrated.
Thus, the Kerala High Court dismissed the review petition, maintaining that the writ petitioners must pursue their remedies through the prescribed statutory channels under the SARFAESI Act.
This judgment reinforces the limited ambit of review jurisdiction in civil proceedings and underscores the importance of utilizing alternative statutory remedies before approaching constitutional courts.
Bottom Line:
Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be invoked to reargue issues already considered in the original judgment; where the Court had already held that the writ petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, review against dismissal of challenge to SARFAESI proceedings was not maintainable.
Statutory provision(s):
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XLVII Rule 1, Order II Rule 2; Constitution of India Article 226; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 17; Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Notification dated 29th May 2015)
M/s Soubhagye Road Builders v. Reserve Bank of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992846
