1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of Revision Petition has been sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Taneja, learned senior counsel for the Respondent/Bank. The Complainant No.1 pledged his jewellery to the Bank. A sewing machine loan was taken by Petitioner No.2. The Complaint giving rise to this Revision was filed with the allegation that since both the loans were entirely different, the Bank could not have claimed any lien over the jewellery pledged by the Complainant No.1, and consequently, the action taken by the Bank was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Consequently, the matter proceeded with a reply from the Bank that relied on the declaration in the application forms which were in the shape of undertakings. The bank relied on both the application forms and the undertaking being identical, has been reproduced by the District Commission in the order passed by it on 15.04.2011 in paragaraph-11 which is extracted herein under:

                          "11. In both the application forms, they have authorized the bank to hold the pledged jewels as security for any other liability payable by them in respect of any advance or financial assistance granted / to be granted thereafter by them. Paragraph 2 of the undertaking/application form signed by them reads as follows as below:-"As Security for repayment of the outstanding balance of the loan which you may grant to me, I hereby pledge with you Gold Jewellery as mentioned in the schedule herein below. You are entitled to hold this security also as security for any other liability payable by me in respect of any advance/financial assistance granted/to be granted hereafter and owing/that may be owing hereafter to the Bank at any office of the Bank on any account whatsoever whether solely or jointly with others and whether as principal debtor or surety".

3. We may point out that the literal meaning of the word 'undertaking' has been dealt with by the Apex Court in several decisions including that reported in '(2009) 16 SCC 126 Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Anr.' where the Apex Court has extracted the meaning of the word from the dictionaries as also from an English decision quoted in para-35 to 37 which are extracted herein under:

                          "35. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines 'undertaking' in the following words:

                          "A Promise, engagement, or stipulation. An engagement by one of the parties to a contract to the other, as distinguished from the mutual engagement of the parties to each other. It does not necessarily imply a consideration. In a somewhat special sense, a promise given in the course of legal proceedings by a party or his counsel, generally as a condition to obtaining some concession from the Court or the opposite party. A promise or security in any form."

                          36. Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, 10th Edition defines 'undertaking' in the following words:

                          "A promise, especially a promise in the course of legal proceedings by a party or his counsel which may be enforced by attachment or otherwise in the same manner as an injunction."

                          37. In M. v. Home Office (1992) 4 All ER 97 at p.132, the expression 'undertaking' has been dealt with in the following manner:

                          "If a party, or solicitors or counsel on his behalf, so act as to convey to the court the firm conviction that an undertaking is being given, that party will be bound and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood."

4. We may further point out that apart from the literal meaning of the word "undertaking", a pledge is a formal promise or undertaking providing something as a security for a debt or obligation. Black's Law Dictionary defines pledge as a security interest in the following terms:

                          "6. A security interest in personal p resented by an indispensable instrument, the interest I property being created by a bailment or other deposit of personal property for the purpose of securing the payment of a debt or the performance of some other duty."

                          The judicial pledge in the present case was claimed as a lien by the Bank and a banker's lien in defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:

                          "banker's lien. The right of a bank to satisfy a customer's matured debt by seizing the customer's money or property in the bank's possession."

                          Applying the aforesaid definition to the undertaking, as quoted herein above, the matter has to be viewed from the said point of view.

5. The District Commission went on to hold that in view of the aforesaid undertaking in respect of the pledged jewels to be held as security, created a general lien on the jewellery and consequently, the action of the bank cannot be faulted with. The Complaint was accordingly dismissed. The Complainants went up in an Appeal before the State Commission and the Appellate order has confirmed the order of the District Commission and has dismissed the Appeal.

6. The findings recorded by the State Commission also narrate the aforesaid status of the undertaking while dismissing the appeal.

7. Learned counsel urged that the nature of the loan and the manner of its acquisition were all different and consequently, the bank could not have proceeded to deprive the Petitioners of their legitimate property and consequently, both the fora below have erred manifestly by dismissing the claim.

8. As noted above and having considered the submissions raised, the Commission cannot re-write the terms of the contract and the obligation cast as per the undertaking given therefore, cannot be avoided through any judicial interpretation. The scope of a revisional jurisdiction has been dealt with and explained by the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, (2011) 11 SCC 269 which is followed in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI, 2022 OnLine SC 77 and Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Ors. (2022) 9 SCC 31. The reasoning given by the fora below does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality so as to warrant exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section-21(b) of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 keeping in view the fact that the present matter arises out of a Complaint filed under the 1986 Act. The position that emerges from the documents as evaluated by the fora below, therefore, reflects that the bank had a lien in terms of the undertaking given. Accordingly, the Revision Petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed.