D/L- 6 05/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2334 of 2026 Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Tanvi Enterprises & Anr. Mr. Dipankar Das ….for the petitioner By an order dated May 20, 2026 the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata refused to condone the delay of about 194 days in preferring the said appeal and consequently dismissed the appeal being Appeal Diary No.907 of 2025 as time barred. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Hyderabad in S.A. 355 of 2019. The question that arises for considering as to whether an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable before this Court challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata when the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Hyderabad. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that through inadvertence an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed before this Court. He submits that after filing of the said application he has come across an order passed by this Court in NCDEX e Markets Limited vs. Authorised Officer, Canara Bank & Ors., reported at 2025 SCC Online 7215 wherein it was held that though the DRAT is located at 2 Kolkata i.e. within the territorial limits of this Court the entire cause of action till the passing of the final judgment by the DRT arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Telengana. It was further held that application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the DRAT, Kolkata in an appeal arising out of an order passed by the DRT-II, Hyderabad is not maintainable before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw this application under Article 227 of the Constitution with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, CO 2334 of 2026 stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is permitted to take back the certified copy of the order impugned by replacing the same with a photostat copy thereof. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)