The court ruled on the interpretation of pre-deposit requirements for co-sharers under the SARFAESI Act, determining that the issue of limitation warrants fresh consideration by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a person claiming to be co-sharer in respect of an immovable property and is directed against an order dated July 24, 2025 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in I.A. No.135 of 2025 filed in Appeal Diary No.216 of 2025.

2. By the order impugned, the application being I.A. No.135 of 2025 was disposed of directing the petitioner herein to make a pre-deposit of 50% of Rs.2,25,22,570/- within the time limit indicated in the said order.

3. The facts giving rise to this civil revision application in a nutshell is as follows:-

The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.A. No.25352 of 2024 alleging that the petitioner being a co-sharer of the property could not be asked by the bank to hand over possession of the immovable property in the absence of any order passed against them.

4. A co-ordinate Bench in its order dated October 7, 2024 recorded that a copy of the order of the District Magistrate has been handed over by the learned advocate for the bank to the petitioner’s learned advocate on record and disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned DRT under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law. The coordinate bench further observed that the issue of limitation will be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal III at Kolkata by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, (in short 2002 Act) being case No.NDN/1871/2024 (SA). The said application was dismissed, by an order dated December 2, 2024, upon holding that the same is barred by limitation.

6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being C.O. No.4191 of 2024 as at the relevant point of time the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was not available. The co-ordinate Bench, by an order dated December 6, 2024 stayed the order of the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas dated February 20, 2020 under memo dated August 10, 2020 for a limited period. In the meantime, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal started functioning and taking note of such fact the co-ordinate Bench by an order dated January 21, 2025 gave opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the 2002 Act. The co-ordinate Bench however, granted an interim protection to the petitioner for a further period of six weeks from the date of the order dated January 21, 2025. It was further observed that in the event an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period the same shall be disposed of on merit.

7. The learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by the order impugned, directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of 50% of Rs. 2,25,22,570/- within a period of four weeks.

8. Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor but a co-sharer by an immovable property which was sought to be taken possession of by the bank, the petitioner is not required to make a pre-deposit as required by the second proviso to Section 18 (1) of the 2002 Act.

9. Mr. Bardhan placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunshine Builders and Developers vs. HDFC Bank Limited , reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 1234 in support of his contention that the expression “any order” used in Section 18 of the 2002 Act should be given a