JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No.09 dated 27th June, 2008 passed by the Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal No. 2 in Appeal No. 5 of 2008 whereby the opposite party No. 2 being the auction purchaser was impleaded as a party in the appeal filed by the judgment debtor against an order dated 10th March, 2008 passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal in T.R.C./100/2001.
(2.) THE propriety of the order of addition of the auction purchaser as a party in the aforesaid appeal, has been challenged before this Court by the judgment debtor/petitioner (Appellant) herein. Heard Mr. Jishnu Saha learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee learned Senior Counsel appearing for the added party and Mr. Jayabrata Basu Roy learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the decree holder bank. Considered the materials-on-record including the order impugned.
(3.) LET me now consider as to how far the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. A decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,33,178/- was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II against the petitioner herein in a suit filed by the State Bank of India, the opposite party No. 1 herein. Such decree was passed sometime in 1999.;