Review Petition No. 03 of 2018 on

Appeal No. 170 of   2018-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                               (Appeal No. 170 of 2018)
  (Arising out of R.A. 03 of 2018  in Appeal No. 05 of 2015 DRT-2, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
Mrs. Sumita Chowdhury, Wife of Mr. Gopal Kumar Chowdhury, of 17A, 
Girish Chandra Bose Road, Entally, Kolkata - 700 014.         
             … Appellant
                                  -Versus-
1.
Punjab National Bank (Formerly United Bank of India), Manicktala 
Branch, Kolkata – 700 006;
2.
M/s.  M.G.   Associates   and  Others    of   54D,   Gariahat   Road 
Kolkata – 700 019. 
        … Respondents 
Counsel for the Appellant 
 …   
Mr. K. Sadhukhan, led by 
Mr. Samik Basu
Counsel for Respondent Bank    
…    
Ms. Sharmistha Pal led by 
Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti
None for Respondent No. 3
JUDGMENT                         :
    20.07.2022    
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :  
Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 8th 
August, 2018, passed by Learned DRT-2 Kolkata  in T.R.C. No. 91 of 
2001 in the matter of M/s. Sumita Chowdhury -vs- Recovery Officer, 
DRT-2, Kolkata.     
2.
Learned DRT dismissed the Review Petition No. 03 of 2018 on 
the ground of barred by limitation.    
3.
Feeling aggrieved Appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have 
perused the record. 
4.
It appears that Recovery Officer, DRT-2, Kolkata passed an 
order, dated 13th February, 2015, which was challenged by the
Appellant by preferring an appeal, being Appeal No. 05 of 2015, 
arising out of T.R.C. No. 91 of 2001 in the matter of M/s. Sumita 

2
      
       Appeal No. 170 of   2018-DRAT-Kolkata  
Chowdhury -vs- United Bank of India & Others. This appeal was 
dismissed on 19th March, 2018 holding that requisite Court fee of 
Rs.29,750.00 is not paid despite granting sufficient time for more than
two years.    
5.
An application for review of the order, dated 19th March, 2018, 
was filed by the Appellant before the Learned DRT-2, Kolkata on 18th 
May, 2018 stating that she had moved before the Learned Recovery 
Officer for release of attachment of her flat which, however, was 
dismissed by the Learned Recovery Officer without assigning any 
reason.    
6.
Appellant preferred an appeal against the order by putting Court 
fee of Rs.250.00 which was registered as Appeal No. 05 of 2015 
without pointing out any defect. Appeal was subsequently dismissed 
on 19th March, 2018 by the Learned DRT. In paragraph 8 of the 
application for review it is stated that the Appellant, through her son, 
Mr. Anoyjeet Chowdhury, referred to the provisions of the Right to 
Information Act, 2005 on 9th June, 2017 in order to be sure about the 
prescribed fee in such a case and was informed that the third parties’ 
application under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial 
Institutions Act, 1993, prescribed fee is Rs.250.00 only.  Accordingly, 
it was prayed that the order dated 19th March, 2018 be reviewed. 
7.
This application for review was dismissed  by the Learned DRT 
by the impugned order dated 8th August, 2018, which is under 
challenge.
8.
Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that review petition has
wrongly been rejected by the Learned DRT as no issue of limitation 
was raised by the opposite party at the time of hearing. Further, it is 
submitted that the limitation for moving the application for review will 
commence from the date when copy of the order is provided to the
Appellant as provided under Rule 16 of The Debts Recovery Tribunal 
(Procedure) 
Rules, 1993. It is further submitted that under 
Section 30 of the Rules, if any appeal is preferred against an order of 

3
      
       Appeal No. 170 of   2018-DRAT-Kolkata  
the Recovery Officer, the period of limitation of thirty days will 
commence from the date, the copy of the order is issued to the 
Appellant. Learned Counsel has furthe

…