IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1735 of 2025 Nataraj Das Vs.

RKD Niraj JV & Ors.

And C.O. 1857 of 2025 Niraj Cements Structurals Limited Vs.

Nataraj Das & Ors.

For the petitioner in C.O. 1735 of : Mr. Rahul Karmakar

2025 and the Opposite Party no. 1 Ms. Gargi Goswami in C.O. 1857 of 2025 Mr. Sounak Mukherjee ……Advocates For the opposite party no. 3 in : Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, Sr. Advocate C.O. 1735 of 2025 and the Mr. Arnab Dutt petitioner in C.O. 1857 of 2025 Ms. Monica Jaiswal Ms. Laboni Dey …..Advocates Reserved on : 2 2.05.2025 Judgement on : 11.07.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The plaintiff in Money Suit (Com) No. 161 of 2024 has filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CO 1735 of 2025 challenging the order being no. 10 dated May 7, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Alipore. C.O. No. 1857 is at the instance of the

3^rd defendant in the said suit and is directed against the self same order.

2. Both the civil revision applications were heard analogously as the applications arise out of common order and are decided by this order.

3. By the order impugned, the learned Judge of the Commercial Court disposed of the I.A. No. 02 of 2004 by directing the defendant to furnish a certain sum of money to the Learned Receiver and the Receiver was requested to keep the said sum by opening a fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank. The plaintiff was directed to pay an amount to the Learned Receiver as initial remuneration and the Receiver was given liberty to raise bill upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall have to pay such bill.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to hereinafter according to their status in CO No. 1735 of 2025.

5. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Learned Judge, Commercial Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) which is registered as M.S. (Com) 161 of 2024. Petitioner filed an application being IA 02 of 2024 praying for passing the judgment in accordance with Order XXXVII Rule 3(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the opposite parties defaulted in entering appearance within 10 days of service of summons upon them.

6. The case as made out by the petitioner in the plaint in a nutshell is as follows:

The plaintiff runs and operates a sole proprietorship firm under the name and style "Modern Construction". The plaintiff is engaged in the business of constructions of building, demolition, real estate activities, specialized constructions activities and other allied businesses. The defendant no. 1 is a registered partnership firm consisting of the defendant no. 2 & 3 as its partners. The defendant no. 1 is a platform created by the defendants no. 2 & 3 so as to participate in the tender process floated by the Kolkata Metro Project in an around the city of Kolkata. The Defendant No. I had obtained the project work for Noapara and Dumdum Cantonment Metro. In order to pursue with the said tender process, several small tenders have been floated by the defendants from time to time as per the requirements of the principal tender. One of such tender for vibration free diamond cutting and dismantling of walls, top and bottom slabs of RCC culvert at Noapara Car shed Metro Project was floated by the defendants. The plaintiff being the lowest bidder was awarded with a tender dated January 29, 2019 and accordingly various work orders were issued to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff competed the entire work in terms of the work orders to the utmost satisfaction of the defendants.

The payment pertaining to the said work orders were on a running account basis. The total invoice amount raised by the plaintiff is for Rs. 88,97,286.03/-. Out of which a credit note was issued for Rs. 9,972/- and an amount of Rs. 56,50,000/-has been received by the plai