Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Rajani Poddar And 6 Ors on 27 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010106232024
2025:GAU-AS:8817
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/187/2024
STATE BANK OF INDIA
STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH-1,
NAGALAND HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR,
11 AND 13 SHAKESPEARE SARANI,
KOLKATA- 700071,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
VERSUS
RAJANI PODDAR AND 6 ORS
WIFE OF LATE RATAN LAL PODDAR,
OFFICE AT 26A, CAMAC STREET,
2ND FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700016.
2:RAJESH PODDAR
SON OF LATE RATAN LAL PODDAR
OFFICE AT 26A
CAMAC STREET
2ND FLOOR
KOLKATA- 700016.
3:RAKESH PODDAR
SON OF LATE RATAN LAL PODDAR
OFFICE AT 26A
CAMAC STREET
2ND FLOOR
KOLKATA- 700016.
Page No.# 2/5
4:M/S RANGALI AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD. OFFICE- DAS COMPLEX
NEAR SBI OFFICE
SOUTH GUWAHATI BRANCH
G.S. ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
5:GAUTAM KUMAR SAHA
RESIDENT OF C/O- BHAGIRATH COTTAGE
INDUS 749/999
WARD NO. 8
RAMNAGAR
P.O.- KHARUPETIA
KHARUPETIA
DIST.- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784115
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION AFORESAID.
6:TUSHAR MAJUMDAR
RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD
WARD NO. 8
P.O.- KHARUPETIA
KHARUPETIA
DISTRICT- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784115
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION AFORESAID.
7:BINITA G. SAHA
RESIDENT OF RAMNAGAR
WARD NO. 8
P.O. KHARUPETIA
KHARUPETIA
DISTRICT- DARRANG
Page No.# 3/5
ASSAM
PIN- 784115
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION AFORESAID
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Parvez, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. D. Deka, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 27.06.2025
Heard Mr. A. Parvez, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents.
2. The present proceedings arises out of a rejection of an objection
filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
short 'the Code').
3. It is relevant to take note of the provisions of Sub-Rule (4) of Order
XXI Rule 58 of the Code which stipulates that any adjudication made to
any claim or objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code, the order
made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same
conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it was a decree.
4. Considering the above, an appeal lies against the said order under
Section 96 of the Code. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take
note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Virudhunagar
Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others Vs. Tuticorin
Educational Society and Others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 wherein the
Page No.# 4/5
Supreme Court categorically observed that when the Code provides a
remedy, the question of exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution does not arise. Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the said
judgment being relevant are quoted herein under:
"12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i)
cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in
terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where
such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or
statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial
authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first
category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil
courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions
of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is
a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227,
even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which
Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is
why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, pointed out in Radhey Shyam v.
Chhabi Nath that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the
orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts".
13. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil
Procedure and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy
under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of
self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from
exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence,
the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article
227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided
under the Code of Civil Procedure itself."
Page No.# 5/5
5. Taking into account the above, as there is an appellate remedy
available as provided under the Code, this Court therefore is not inclined
to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. This Court duly takes note of the submission of Mr. A. Parvez, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that
the petitioner under the bonafide belief and on legal advice has filed the
instant proceedings and has been pursuing the instant proceedings
diligently. He therefore submits that the period during which the instant
proceedings have been pending be excluded while computing the period
of limitation.
7. Taking into account the above, this Court closes the instant petition
on the ground that the instant proceedings cannot be entertained under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
8. The petitioner herein shall be at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings by way of appeal before the competent Court.
9. The period from 27.05.2024 till date be excluded while computing
the period of limitation.
10. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the LCR to the learned
Court below.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
