- (1.) This application is at the instance of an intervener and is directed against the order no.21 dated August 18, 2006, order no.37 dated September 19, 2007, order no.39 dated January 16, 2008 and order no.45 dated July 22, 2008 passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal I in R. P. Case No.99 of 2003 arising out of T. A. No.74 of 1997.
(2.) The opposite party no.1 is the certificate holder and the opposite party nos.2 to 4 are the certificate debtors. The execution proceeding, namely, R. P. Proceeding No.99 of 2003 is pending before the learned Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal I for execution of the recovery certificate to the tune of Rs.49,37,106.92 paisa. The certificate holder took steps for attachment of the properties of the Snow View Properties Private Limited and M/s. Dheklapara Tea Estate situated at 42CA, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta 700 019 and at 135, Canning Street, Calcutta 700 001 respectively and also to appoint a receiver to take possession of the said two properties. At that time, the intervener appeared and filed an application for setting aside the impugned orders contending, inter alia, that the intervener is not the certificate debtor and as such, the properties of the concern could not be attached and no receiver could be appointed to take possession of the same. The intervener/petitioner has contended that the learned Recovery officer was not justified to direct the intervener to furnish particulars as directed in the impugned orders and that the learned Recovery officer was not also justified by passing orders restraining the intervener from dealing, disposing and / or alienating in any way encumbering the property in question at 42CA, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta 700 019. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.;