Patna High Court
Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Now Bihar Gramin Bank)versusRavi Ranjan,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The review petition is maintainable due to the Division Bench’s permission, but it fails because the bank did not supply all required documents and the alleged error does not meet the threshold for review.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard a civil review petition filed by Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (now Bihar Gramin Bank) seeking review of a February 2024 judgment that had set aside a disciplinary order against a bank employee and directed the bank to supply documents and complete the enquiry within six months. The bank argued that the lower court erred in finding that only one document was supplied, contending that all demanded documents were either provided or irrelevant, and claimed an error apparent on the face of the record. The respondent counter‑claimed that the review was not maintainable because the bank had already pursued a Limited Preference Appeal (LPA) and that the statutory scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is narrow. The court held that, although the Division Bench had expressly permitted a review, the petition failed on merits because the bank had not supplied all documents and the alleged error did not satisfy the stringent criteria for review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, with the court reiterating the direction to the bank to furnish the outstanding documents and complete the enquiry within six months from the date of disposal of the review.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil review petition is maintainable after the filing of a Limited Preference Appeal when the Division Bench has expressly permitted a review.
- Whether the lower court’s finding that only one document was supplied constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Whether the bank’s failure to supply all demanded documents violates the principles of natural justice.
- Scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII Rule 1, Section 114
Subjects
- civil review
- natural justice
- document production
- review jurisdiction
- CPC Order 47
- Section 114 CPC
- bank disciplinary proceedings
- departmental enquiry
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.259 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1380 of 2020
======================================================
1. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Now Bihar Gramin Bank) having its head
office at Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex NH30 New by pass near B.P.
Highway service Petrol Pump Asochak. Patna 800030. Through its
chairman.
2. Chairman Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, having its head office at Sri Vishnu
Commercial Complex NH30 New by pass near B.P. Highway Service Petrol
Pump Asochak, Patna 800030.
3. General Manager (D.A.C.) Head Office Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, at Sri
Vishnu Commercial Complex NH30 New by Pass near B.P. Highway
service Petrol Pump Asochak, Patna 800030.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Ravi Ranjan, Son of Sri Maheswari Garaine, Resident of Mohall Alkapuri
Colony, Bhagwanpur Chowk, P.S.- Bhagwanpur. Distri Muzaffarpur PIN-
842001.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2934 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1380 of 2020
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Son of Sri Maheswari Garaine, Resident of Mohalla- Alkapuri
Colony, Bhagwanpur Chowk, P.O. and P.S- Bhagwanpur, District-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman namely Shri Mukul
Sahay having its head office at NH 30, Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex,
New Bypass Road, Near BP Highway Services Petrol Pump, Patna, 800016.
2. Sri Mukul Sahay, Chairman, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, having its head
office at NH 30, Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex, New Bypass Road,
Near BP Highway Services Petrol Pump, Patna, 800016.
3. Sri Sanjoy Sinha, General Manager (D.A.C.), Head Office, Dakshin Bihar
Gramin Bank at NH 30, Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex, New Bypass
Road, Near BP Highway Services Petrol Pump, Patna, 800016.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CIVIL REVIEW No. 259 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
2/17
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Mrs. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Hemant Raj, Advocate
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2934 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Mrs. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Hemant Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-04-2026
Re. Civil Review No. 259 of 2025.
Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner - Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) and Mr. Kumar Kaushik,
learned counsel appearing for the opposite party- writ petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner–Bank submits
that the present Civil Review Application has been filed for
review of the judgment dated 01.02.2024 passed in CWJC No.
1380 of 2020, whereby the Hon’ble Court allowed the writ
petition and set aside the order of punishment dated 31.12.2018
passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate
order dated 20.09.2019 affirming the dismissal. The Hon’ble
Court granted liberty to the Bank to proceed with the
departmental enquiry only after supplying all relevant
documents, as demanded by the writ petitioner in Annexure-5,
and to conclude the proceeding within six months. Against the
said judgement, the Bank preferred LPA No. 380 of 2024 which
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
3/17
was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2025, granting liberty to
the Bank to file a Civil Review and observing that if certain
materials already existed on record but were not brought on
record at the time of adjudication of the writ petition, the
appropriate remedy would be to seek review, and accordingly
disposed of the appeal as not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the finding of
the Hon’ble Court in the writ judgment, to the effect that only
one document was supplied to the writ petitioner, is factually
incorrect and constitutes an error apparent on the face of the
record. From a bare perusal of Annexure-6 to the writ petition
(page 99), i.e., letter dated 18.07.2018, it is evident that the writ
petitioner himself acknowledged that out of 15 documents
demanded vide letter dated 01.06.2018, documents relating to
Serial Nos. 1, 2, 13 and 14 had already been supplied. Thus, the
submission that only one document was provided is erroneous.
4. It is further submitted that during the departmental
enquiry, 20 documents were exhibited on behalf of the Bank and
12 witnesses were examined in support of the charges. Total, 76
documents were marked as exhibits, and the writ petitioner was
given full opportunity to inspect and peruse the records. The
enquiry proceedings, annexed with the supplementary affidavit,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
4/17
clearly indicate that the writ petitioner perused more than 100
documents during the course of the enquiry. Learned counsel
further submits that the documents relevant to the charges,
including those sought vide letter dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure-
5), were duly supplied, as is evident from the enquiry report, the
submissions of the Presenting Officer, and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer. However, despite due diligence, the complete
enquiry records could not be brought on record during the writ
proceedings, which led to an erroneous conclusion regarding
violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted
that from the enquiry proceeding dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure-4,
to the supplementary affidavit), it is evident that the Presenting
Officer addressed all 15 documents demanded by the writ
petitioner and clarified that most of the documents were not
relevant to the charges and had been sought only to delay or
divert the proceedings. This position was affirmed by the
Enquiry Officer in the proceeding dated 23.07.2018 (page 92),
wherein it was specifically held that the charges were precise
and only relevant documents could be demanded, and that most
of the documents sought were neither specific nor relevant.
5. It is also submitted that, as reflected from the
enquiry proceedings dated 30.06.2018 and 02.07.2018
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
5/17
(Annexure-3 series to the supplementary affidavit), the writ
petitioner was granted opportunity to inspect account-wise
records relating to Biharsharif and Lodipur Branches in the
presence of the Enquiry Officer. Further, upon additional
demand made vide letter dated 18.07.2018, the Enquiry Officer
directed that all relevant documents be supplied to the writ
petitioner.
6. In view of the above, learned counsel submits that
the enquiry proceedings clearly demonstrate that all relevant
documents were duly supplied and adequate opportunity was
provided to the writ petitioner. Therefore, there has been no
violation of the principles of natural justice, and the contrary
finding recorded in the writ judgment is liable to be reviewed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a
judgment may be reviewed on three grounds, namely: (i)
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge
of the applicant or could not be produced at the time the decree
was passed; (ii) error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii)
any other sufficient reason. All the aforesaid grounds are
attracted in the present case. Accordingly, in the interest of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
6/17
justice, the judgment dated 01.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble
Court is fit to be reviewed.
8. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon a judgement rendered in the case of Anuj
Kumar Singh Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and other reported
in 2024 (2) PLJR 30, wherein at paragraph 9 it has been held
that "As regard the issue about documents having not been
supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner having not been
granted opportunity to examine witnesses, this Court finds that
the petitioner has failed to produce any proof to the effect that
he had made any application with regard to the same
separately, nonetheless, another aspect of the matter is that the
petitioner has also failed to so as to what prejudice has been
caused to him in case any document had not been made
available to him, hence the petitioner cannot derive any benefit
on this score. This Court also finds that the findings arrived at
by the conducting/Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report dated
14.10.2014 are not patently perverse or grossly incompatible
with the fact and circumstances of the case and hence no
interference is warranted. In this connection, it would be
relevant to refer a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case Union of India and other Vs. Subrata Nath,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
7/17
reported in 2020 SCC online SC 1617."
9. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No.1457 of
2022 Regional Manager UCO Bank and another Vs. Krishna
Kumar Bhardwaj, in paragraph no.24 of the said judgement it
has been held "So far as the submission regarding non supply of
document is concerned, Inquiry Officer has observed that the
record which was demanded by the Respondent delinquent was
made available to him except the on which was confidential in
nature still he was permitted for inspection. At the same time,
the respondent failed to so as the what prejudice has been
caused to him in reference to the alleged non-supply of the
documents demanded by him."
10. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgement
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10858 of
2024, S Janaki Iyer Vs. Union of India and others whose
paragraph no.22, 23 and 24 are most relevant in this case.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner -Bank
conclusive submits that in light of the submissions made above
and in view of the judgements relied above, the present Civil
Review application is fit to be allowed.
12. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
8/17
behalf of the Opposite Party submits that the present review
application is not maintainable in view of the liberty granted by
the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 380 of 2024. It is
contended that, in light of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, a review is maintainable only where no appeal
has been preferred against the judgment or order sought to be
reviewed. In the present case, the petitioner–Dakshini Bihar
Gramin Bank has already availed the remedy of appeal by filing
the aforesaid LPA and, therefore, no statutory right survives to
seek review of the same judgment.
13. Learned counsel further submits that although the
Hon’ble Division Bench has granted liberty to the petitioner–
Bank to file a review application, such liberty cannot enlarge or
override the statutory limitations prescribed under the Code of
Civil Procedure. It is argued that the scope of review available
to the petitioner is, therefore, confined strictly to the extent
indicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench and is narrower than
the scope that might have been available had no appeal been
preferred.
14. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied
on the judgement rendered in the case of Malleeswari vs. K.
Suguna and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1927
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
9/17
paragraph 15, 16 and 17 whereof is relevant in this case.
15. In this background, it is submitted that the present
review application deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
16. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the judgments relied upon by them, this Court
arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner had initially
preferred an LPA before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court and, after disposal of the said LPA, has filed the present
Civil Review petition in light of the observations made therein.
17. The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 of the CPC is well settled. A review
petition is maintainable where a person, considering himself
aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed
but has not been preferred, seeks review on account of
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
despite due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could
not be produced at the time of passing of the decree or order, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, or for any other sufficient reason.
18. In the present case, it is an admitted position that
the petitioner–Bank did not initially file a Civil Review petition,
but instead challenged the order by way of LPA and only
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
10/17
thereafter invoked the remedy of review. Ordinarily, in view of
the statutory scheme, such a review would not be maintainable.
However, since the Hon’ble Division Bench, while disposing of
the LPA, granted liberty to the petitioner–Bank to avail the
remedy of Civil Review, the present petition is held to be
maintainable.
19. On merits, it appears that in the writ proceedings,
the writ petitioner had taken a specific stand that certain
documents were demanded from the Enquiry Officer vide letters
dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure-5) and 18.07.2018. In response, the
Bank, in its counter affidavit, denied that any specific
documents were demanded. However, in the present review
petition, particularly in paragraph 4 of the supplementary
affidavit, the stand of the Bank has materially changed, stating
that the documents so demanded were not relevant to the
charges and were sought only with an intention to divert the
issue.
20. It further appears to this Court that before the
Hon’ble Division Bench in the LPA, it was submitted by the
Bank that the said documents formed part of the enquiry
proceedings and were already available on record, though
inadvertently not placed before the Court while deciding the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
11/17
writ petition. However, in the present review proceedings, the
stand is that the documents were not relevant to the charges and
that only relevant documents had been supplied.
21. It has been mentioned that that the finding to the
effect that only one document was supplied by the petitioner is
factually incorrect and constitutes an error apparent on the face
of the record. However, from the writ petition it transpires that
the petitioner had sought 15 documents, out of which documents
at Sl. Nos. 1 to 13 and 14 were admittedly supplied. It has
further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
remaining documents were not relevant, and therefore only the
relevant documents were furnished.
In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the
considered view that the question as to which documents are
relevant or irrelevant cannot be unilaterally determined by one
party. It is evident from the records of the writ petition as well
as the review application that all the documents produced in the
enquiry were not supplied to the writ petitioner. Therefore, even
if the earlier finding that only one document was supplied is
factually incorrect, the same does not help the petitioner,
inasmuch as it is an admitted position that all the demanded
documents were not furnished.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
12/17
22. Accordingly, the finding that “only one document
was supplied to the writ petitioner” is hereby modified to read
as “all the documents were not supplied to the writ petitioner.
23. In light of these contradictory stands, this Court is
of the considered view that the material which ought to have
been brought on record by the petitioner–Bank was not properly
placed either by way of pleadings or documents, which
ultimately led to the allowing of the writ petition with a
direction to supply the documents and conclude the proceedings
within six months. At this stage, it is also observed that when a
delinquent employee asserts that certain documents are
necessary for his defence, and the employer disputes their
relevance, this Court, in exercise of its review jurisdiction,
would refrain from adjudicating such disputed questions of fact.
24. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner,
namely Regional Manager, UCO Bank & Another vs. Krishna
Kumar Bhardwaj (Civil Appeal No. 1457 of 2022 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 13953 of 2021) and S. Janaki Iyer vs. Union of
India & Others (Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2024 arising out of
SLP (C) No. 29718 of 2018), do not advance the case of the
petitioner, particularly in the context of the limited scope of
review jurisdiction.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
13/17
25. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel for the opposite party in Malleeswari vs. K.
Suguna & Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927,
aptly lays down the scope of Civil Review. Paragraphs 15, 16
and 17 of the said judgment read as follows:
“15. It is axiomatic that the
right of appeal cannot be assumed
unless expressly conferred by the
statute or the rules having the force of
a statute. The review jurisdiction
cannot be assumed unless it is
conferred by law on the authority or
the Court. Section 114 and Order 47,
Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of
review of the courts. The power of
review is different from appellate
power and is subject to the following
limitations to maintain the finality of
judicial decisions:
15.1 The review
proceedings are not by way of an
appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be
confused with appellate powers,
which may enable an appellate court
to correct all manner of errors
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
14/17
committed by the subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is
not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be reheard and corrected.
A review petition, it must be
remembered, has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be an appeal
in disguise.
15.4 The power of review can be
exercised for the correction of a
mistake, but not to substitute a view.
Such powers can be exercised within
the limits specified in the statute
governing the exercise of power.
15.5 The review court does not sit
in appeal over its own order. A
rehearing of the matter is
impermissible. It constitutes an
exception to the general rule that once
a judgment is signed or pronounced, it
should not be altered. Hence, it is
invoked only to prevent a miscarriage
of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors.
16. To wit, through a review
application, an apparent error of fact
or law is intimated to the court, but no
extra reasoning is undertaken to
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
15/17
explain the said error. The intimation
of error at the first blush enables the
court to correct apparent errors
instead of the higher court correcting
such errors. At both the above stages,
detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction
between the power of review and
appellate power, we restate the power
and scope of review jurisdiction.
Review grounds are summed up as
follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of
new and important matter or evidence
is a ground available if it is
demonstrated that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, this
evidence was not within their
knowledge or could not be produced
by the party at the time, the original
decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record may be invoked
if there is something more than a mere
error, and it must be the one which is
manifest on the face of the record.
Such an error is a patent error and
not a mere wrong decision. An error
which has to be established by a long-
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
16/17
drawn process of reasoning on points
where there may conceivably be two
opinions can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the
record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any
other sufficient reason’ means a
reason that is sufficient on grounds at
least analogous to those specified in
the other two categories.”
26. On the basis of the said judgment, this Court
reached on the conclusion that scope of review is very limited
and review is not an appeal. The question of discovery of new
and important matter has not arisen; rather the Bank himself
states that all documents not provided rather relevant documents
as pointed in the relevant letters have been provided and
irrelevant documents have not been provided. This plea shall
not help the petitioner-Bank at this juncture due to the reason
mentioned above that bank cannot decide which document is
relevant and not relevant.
27. Hence, the review petition stands dismissed
reiterating the direction to the petitioner–Bank to provide the
documents to the respondent as demanded and, then, to continue
the proceeding and conclude the same within six months.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.259 of 2025 dt. 06-04-2026
17/17
However, it is clarified that the period of six months for
completion of the proceedings shall be reckoned from the date
of disposal of the present review petition.
Ref: M.J.C. No.2934 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the opposite parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present application has been filed for initiating a contempt
proceeding against the Opposite Parties for non-
compliance/violation of the judgement and order dated
01.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 1380 of
2020.
3. Since the Civil Review petition has been dismissed,
the present M.J.C. is directed to be de-tagged and shall be heard
separately.
4. Let it be listed under the heading “For Admission”
on 19.06.2026.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06/04/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…