Review petitions

Prayer for re-examination and re-evaluation of entire evidence having been considered by Supreme Court in the impugned judgment

Validity

Review could not be granted for re­appraisement of certain facts or re-examination of same arguments or re-arguing/rehearing case on merits and additional grounds

Review petition was dismissed in circumstances.

All the arguments made in the review petitions had already been comprehensively considered and decided in the impugned judgment passed by Supreme Court

Counsel for the petitioner in fact wanted re-examination and re-evaluation of the entire evidence once again, which could not be done while dilating upon the review petition

Review could not be granted on the ground that certain facts required reappraisement

Rearguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds, was beyond the scope of review petition

Review petitions were devoid of merits and the same were dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner assailed judgment and decree on the ground that she did not sign any document in favour of bank, including mortgage deed and general power of attorney

Validity

Banking Court must have referred the same to handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion whether purported signatures on disputed documents were in handwriting of petitioner or were forged or manipulated by somebody else

Such important aspect of the case not only escaped attention of Banking Court but High Court also did not take notice thereof

Any person could not be made liable for making payment which he or she was otherwise not legally bound to pay but was pressurized and forced to pay on the ground of some forged or manipulated documents

Supreme Court, in view of persistent, strong and vehemence denial of petitioner of her signatures on mortgage deed, power of attorney etc. made comparison of her denied signatures with her admitted signatures and further directed comparison by handwriting expert to conclusively hold that disputed documents had signatures of petitioner

Supreme Court also directed that proceedings against petitioner would be taken after the report of handwriting expert was received by concerned Banking Court in terms of the report

Appeal was allowed.