Item- 23. sg 02-07-2026 Ct. 6 CO 218 of 2026 Rajneesh Soti Versus UCO Bank & Ors. [ Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay Mr. Arjun Samanta Mr. Ankit Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Sankar Ms. Dipika Sonkar …for the respondent no.1 Mr. Shashwat Natak Mr. Snehasish Chakraborty …for the opposite party no.2 The affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. On the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2, leave is granted to the learned Advocate for the opposite party no.2 to file the vakalatnama in the department by tomorrow (3rd July, 2026). This instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (in short “DRAT”) challenging the order dated 26th September, 2025 passed by the DRAT, Kolkata in Appeal No. 43 of 2024 arising out of O.A. No. 08 of 2014. By the order impugned, the order dated 12th March, 2021 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata (in short “DRT-I”) in O.A. No. 8 of 2014 was set aside as far as it relates to the petitioner only. The opposite party no.1/Bank filed an original application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (renamed as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993) praying for issuance of the recovery certificate for a certain sum of money. The original application was allowed by an order dated 12th March, 2021 passing certain directions. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner approached the DRAT, Kolkata. The said DRAT, by the order impugned, had set aside the order dated 12th March, 2021 insofar as the petitioner only. The original application was filed by the Bank against five defendants. The petitioner herein was impleaded as fourth defendant. The proforma opposite party nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 were the other defendants in the said application. The learned DRAT, Kolkata, while setting aside the order of the DRT-I, has made it clear that the said order would relate only to the petitioner herein. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, after the learned DRAT after arriving at a finding that the summons was not served upon the defendant nos. 1 to 4, could not have set aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the petitioner only while there were other defendants in the original application. The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 has purchased the property by way of auction sale and the sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the opposite party no.2. He further submits that since the petitioner only preferred an appeal before the DRAT, the Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the appellant before it. Heard the learned Advocate for the Bank. The learned DRAT, after noticing that the DRT-I 2 vide order dated 17th November, 2018 observed that the service was sufficient on the basis of an affidavit of service filed by the Bank proceeded to consider the contents of the affidavit. The learned DRAT, after taking into consideration the affidavits, which were part of the records, arrived at a factual finding that the notice which was issued through speed post, returned with the endorsement “delivery attempted, addressee moved”. The DRAT further took note of the admission of the bank in IA 879 of 2019 wherein it is categorically stated that it would be evident from the affidavit of service more particularly its annexures being a copy of the summons that some unidentified person has received the summons for and on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and a prayer for publication of the summons upon the defendant nos. 1 to 5 was made. However, the Registry vide order dated 06.06.2019 passed an order of publication of summons only upon the defendant no. 5. The learned DRAT recorded a factual finding that summons upon the defendant nos. 1 to 4 were not published. In the light of the aforesaid factual finding, the learned DRAT concluded that it cannot be held that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 were duly served and despite service, they did not appear before the DRT in the original proceeding. The learned DRT passed an order determining the debt against the defendants and that the Bank is entitled to recover the amount with interest from the defendants. Considering the nature of the order passed by the DRT, this Court holds that the same could not have been set aside against the petitioner only and ought to have been set aside against the other defendants as well. 3 The order impugned stands modified to the extent that the impugned order dated 12th March, 2021 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata in O.A. No. 8 of 2014 shall stand set aside insofar as it relates to the defendants of the original proceeding. With the above observation, this civil revisional application is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 4