Review cannot reargue merits; party without privity of contract and default was correctly excluded from recovery proceedings.

A review application before the Appellate Tribunal cannot be used to reargue the matter on merits, and grounds that merely seek reconsideration are impermissible. On the facts, respondent no. 3 was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the recovery proceedings because there was no privity of contract with the Bank, no financial assistance was advanced to him, no default was attributed to him, and he was not proceeded against by the Bank. The cited Supreme Court authority was held inapplicable on those facts, and the review challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could maintain a review application before the Appellate Tribunal against the earlier order and whether respondent no. 3 was a necessary or proper party to the recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The grounds raised in review were not permissible, since review cannot be used to argue the matter afresh on merits. The earlier appellate finding that respondent no. 3 had no privity of contract with the Bank, had not been advanced any financial assistance, had not committed default, and was not proceeded against by the Bank, made him neither a necessary nor a proper party. The cited Supreme Court decision was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The review challenge failed and respondent no. 3 was correctly excluded from the proceedings.

---