SARFAESI Act | Correcting Wrong Date In District Magistrate's Section 14 Order Is Not Review: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has upheld a District Magistrate's decision to correct a wrong date in a SARFAESI order passed to assist a bank in taking possession of mortgaged property, holding that fixing a typographical error does not amount to an impermissible review.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act performs an administrative role while passing such orders and does not exercise judicial power. Because of this, the magistrate is permitted to correct clerical or typing mistakes in the order.

“As the order under Section 14 of the Act is passed in exercise of powers of a ministerial nature and the order dated 28.06.2025 has not been passed by the District Magistrate in exercise judicial powers, the District Magistrate certainly has the power to correct ministerial and typographical errors in the order passed in exercise of ministerial powers,” the Court said.

The case involved a bank's request for official assistance to take possession of a secured property after the borrower failed to repay the loan. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act allows lenders to seek official assistance from the District Magistrate to take possession of secured assets once the required procedure under the law is completed.

Inadvertently, In the order dated May 8, 2025, the District Magistrate referred to two different dates for issuance of the possession notice at different places in the same order. After noticing the inconsistency, the bank applied for correction. The magistrate corrected the date on June 28, 2025, stating that it was a typographical error.

Aggrieved, the borrower challenged the correction before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It contended that the magistrate had no power to review or modify an order passed under Section 14 and that the change affected valuable rights. The tribunal rejected the challenge, holding that correcting a typing error did not amount to a review.

Upholding the tribunal's view, the High Court said the correction did not alter the original order or change the rights of the parties.

“Correction of such an error cannot be said to be a review of the order dated 08.05.2025 since it doesn't change the substance of the order,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the argument that the correction became invalid merely because it had consequences for the borrower.

“Even assuming that the correction affects valuable rights of the petitioner, since the correction does not alter the order dated 08.05.2025 substantially, its mere effect on the petitioner would not be decisive of the nature of the order so as to make the correction order an order of review,” the court said.

Noting that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had given reasons for rejecting the borrower's challenge, the High Court found no illegality in either the magistrate's correction or the tribunal's order. The petition was dismissed.