High Court Dismisses Applicants Revision Applications Against Multiple Borrowers in Loan Recovery Case Due to Procedural Deficiencies and Lack of Jurisdictional Error

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-05-18 12:51:03

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The High Court dismissed a series of Civil Revision Applications filed by Applicant challenging the dismissal of its applications for restoration of suits against multiple borrowers and legal heirs. The suits were originally filed for recovery of loan amounts and were dismissed for default by the trial court. When the bank applied for restoration, those applications were also dismissed. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the lower court's proceedings and applied the principle of res judicata since similar issues had been decided earlier. The court emphasized procedural compliance under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and dismissed all applications with costs.

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed multiple Civil Revision Applications filed by Applicant against various borrowers and legal heirs of a deceased guarantor -- The applications sought to challenge the lower court's orders dismissing the bank's applications for restoration of suits that were earlier dismissed for default -- The court held that the bank failed to establish any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the lower court's proceedings -- The principle of res judicata was applied as similar issues had been decided in earlier proceedings -- The court noted procedural deficiencies including improper service of summons and failure to adhere to timelines under Order V and Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The revision applications were dismissed with costs, upholding the lower court's decisions

Issue of Consideration

The Issue of whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to interfere with the lower court's orders dismissing the bank's applications for restoration of suits

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed all Civil Revision Applications filed by Central Bank of India with costs, upholding the lower court's orders that had dismissed the bank's applications for restoration of suits

Law Points

The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
1908 (CPC) is limited to cases involving jurisdictional errors or material irregularities
The principle of res judicata applies when matters have been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings
The requirement for proper service of summons and adherence to procedural timelines under Order V and Order IX of the CPC is mandatory
The court emphasized that revision applications cannot be used to re-litigate settled issues or challenge factual findings

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 1

Civil Revision Application No. 580 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 133 of 2025, Civil Revision Application No. 252 of 2025, Civil Revision Application No. 590 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 591 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 592 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 593 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 594 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 595 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 596 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 597 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 598 of 2024, Civil Revision Application No. 599 of 2024 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 600 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 601 OF 2024

2026-02-04

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

2026:BHC-AS:6101

Mr. Rohan Sawant, with Vikas Mulik, i/b Sunil Kadam, for the Applicant in all Civil Revision Applications. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate, with Amogh K. Karandikar, for Respondent Nos. 2a and 2b in all Civil Revision Applications.

Central Bank of India, through Branch Office called 'Chembur Branch'

Vikas Kashinath Gaikwad, Rohini Ramesh Kalyankar (since deceased through legal heirs: Rasik Ramesh Kalyankar, Rachana Ramesh Kalyankar), Ravindra B Patil, Dattatray Shrirang Lohar, Murli K Nair, Vinod Y Ovhal, Abhijit C Pulekar, Naresh Mhaskar, Kiran Shetye, Rajesh Kale, Vilas Kashinath Patil, Shankar Shravan Kamble, Amit Chakraborty

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision applications challenging lower court orders dismissing applications for restoration of suits

Remedy Sought

The applicant bank sought revision of lower court orders that dismissed its applications for restoration of suits against multiple borrowers

Filing Reason

The bank's original suits for loan recovery were dismissed for default, and its applications for restoration were also dismissed by the lower court

Previous Decisions

The trial court had dismissed the bank's suits for default, and subsequently dismissed the bank's applications for restoration of those suits

Issues

Whether the High Court should exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC to interfere with the lower court's orders Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the bank's revision applications Whether there were procedural deficiencies in the bank's conduct of the cases

Submissions/Arguments

The bank argued that the lower court committed jurisdictional errors in dismissing its restoration applications The respondents likely argued that the bank failed to comply with procedural requirements and that the matters were res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to cases involving jurisdictional errors or material irregularities, which were not established in this case -- The principle of res judicata applies when similar issues have been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings -- Strict compliance with procedural requirements under Order V and Order IX of the CPC is mandatory for maintaining suits and applications for restoration

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the bank failed to establish any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the lower court's proceedings The principle of res judicata was applied as similar issues had been decided in earlier proceedings The court noted procedural deficiencies including improper service of summons and failure to adhere to timelines

Procedural History

The bank filed suits for loan recovery against multiple borrowers -- The suits were dismissed for default by the trial court -- The bank filed applications for restoration of suits -- The lower court dismissed the restoration applications -- The bank filed Civil Revision Applications before the High Court -- The High Court dismissed all revision applications with costs

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order V, Order IX
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993: Section 18, Section 17
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 34, Section 13, Section 17, Section 13(4), Section 17(3)
Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227