The court upheld the importance of presenting fraud allegations in the correct procedural context, rejecting a petitioner's late claims of fraud due to prior document legitimacy issues and suppression of material facts.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an owner of a commercial space of a multi-storied building and is directed against an order dated 25^th April, 2025 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in B.T. Appeal No.113 of 2024.

By the order impugned, the learned Tribunal fixed

26^th June, 2025 for filing receipt showing payment of cost and for hearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter hearing of the stay application.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that challenging an order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (Building) on 5^th December, 2022 in Demolition Case No. D-59-D/Br.- X/21-22, the petitioner preferred an appeal being B. T. Appeal No.113 of 2024 before the Municipal Building Tribunal. Since the said appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, the same was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . The petitioner has also filed an application praying for stay of the operation of the order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (Building).

Mr. Bhattacharya submits that a document dated

14^th March, 2022 was placed before the Special Officer (Building). He submits that the said document is a representation, purported to have been signed by the petitioner herein, but according to Mr. Bhattacharya, the same is a manufactured document. He submits that the petitioner took out an application for initiating an enquiry into the matter against the Municipal Authority and the private respondent, which was rejected by the order impugned by imposing cost.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate represents the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 6^th March, 2024 praying for regularization of the illegal construction. He further submits that alleging inaction on the part of the Municipal Authority, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble Court being WPA 8573 of 2025 and an order was passed in the said writ petition directing the Municipal Authority to file a report. He submits that suppressing the fact of pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed the instant civil revision alleging that the petitioner did not pray for regularization of the illegal construction. He submits that the Municipal Tribunal was right in holding that it cannot go into the issue of fraud or misrepresentation alleged to have been practised before the Special Officer (Building).

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent/opposite party nos.5 to 7 submits that the petitioner has admitted in the civil revisional application that he received a notice dated 28^th April, 2022 for the purpose of hearing which was fixed on 23^rd May, 2022. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner made incorrect statement by saying that the petitioner was not present at the time of hearing before the Special Officer (Building).

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed. It appears from the impugned order that 26^th June, 2025 was fixed for hearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter hearing of the stay application. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that hearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been fixed on 21^st August, 2025. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order fixing the date of hearing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . Now, the question remains as to whether the learned Tribunal was right in not allowing the prayer of the petitioner seeking investigation against the Municipal Authority and the private respondent. The learned Tribunal recorded that it appears from the case record of the demolition case that the petitioner herein conteste