IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

CO 1429 of 2024 Calcutta Infrastructure Infotech Projects Limited Vs A.R.S. Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Joy Saha, ld. Sr. Adv.(V/C)

Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, Mr. D. Dutta.

For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, ld. Sr. Adv.

Ms. Radhika Singh, Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta.

Judgment reserved on : 20.01.2026 Judgment delivered on : 13.02.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The civil revision has been preferred praying for setting aside of the impugned order dated 19^th October, 2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the order impugned in the appeal dated 13th May, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and dismissal of R.A.

No. 1 of 2014 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

2. The petitioner’s revisional application is directed against the failure on the part of the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on the limited question as to whether or not the opposite party no. 1 had any locus standi to institute the review proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal when admittedly no conveyance has been executed or sale certificate has been issued in favour of the opposite party no. 1 and consequently, it has no claim of ownership in respect of the concerned property.

3. It is further contended that the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate and declare title of any property.

4. The petitioner in its written argument has put it’s case as follows:-

“The challenge to the impugned order of the DRAT dated

19^th October, 2023 is limited only to:-

a. The affirmation by the DRAT of the order allowing IA No. 366 of 2014;

b. The portion of the order of the DRAT directing the DRT to entertain, decide its jurisdiction and to dispose of R.A. No. 1 of 2014;

c. The observations made by the DRAT in paragraphs

43 and 47 of the said order read with paragraph 22 thereof.”

5. The opposite party herein in their written notes have stated as follows:-

“Vide the learned DRAT’s order dated 19th October, 2023, the petitioner’s application for amendment of M.A. No. 19 of 2014, which was disallowed by the learned DRT, has been set aside and the amendment allowed by the learned DRAT. In fact, the petitioner has implemented the DRAT order by having the amendments carried out on or about 22^nd November, 2023 i.e. much before filing of the present civil revisional application, and thereafter, participated in the hearing before the learned DRT on the basis of the amended M.A. No. 19 of 2014 on 1^st December, 2023, 9^th January, 2024, 15^th March, 2024 and 5^th April, 2024.

6. It appears from the impugned order dated 19th October, 2023, that the learned DRAT has kept all the points open for the learned DRT to decide. The relevant part of the order is as follows:-

“47. Right to challenge by the respondent No. 1 or whether the applications R.A. No. 01 of 2014 is legally maintainable or not, are the issues which have to be decided by the learned DRT. Further, what will be the effect of the orders of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court dated 13.09.2006 passed in C.O. NO. 1909 of 2004 is also to be decided by the learned DRT at the time of adjudication.”

7. The Debt Recovery Tribunal vide an order dated 13.05.2014, decided as follows:-

“15. In the above circumstances it is ordered as follows :

(i) The application being IA No. 366 of 2014 for condonation of delay is allowed.

(ii) CIIPL or their agent, servant or any person claiming under them are restrained from making any construction on the basis of sanction plan using the 2.74 acres of the disputed property as an integral part for availing the floor area etc.

(iii) No ad interim order can be passed on MA/19/2014 unless the delay is condoned by this Tribunal.”

8. Vide the impugned order dated 19th October, 2023, the DRAT, Kolkata passed the following order:-

“43. No doubt, it is trite law that jurisdiction to a Court cannot be conferred by consent of the