Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner, M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) has preferred this revision petition against order dated 12th Nov., 2007, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) in M.A. No.83/07 and order of review dated 5th June, 2008, passed therein with further prayer to allow application, I.A. No.135/06 as preferred by the petitioner in O.A. No.23/05 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal – I, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as DRT). 2. The facts as emerge from the record show that M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd., filed O.A. No.23/05 against the respondent, M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation ltd., and Kothari (Madras) International Ltd., for recovery of Rs.8,18,80,538/= together with future interest and cost. The petitioner obtained assignment of deed from M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd., in respect of various credit facilities availed by M/s.Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., the borrower. The borrower, M/s.Kothari Industrial Financial Corporation Ltd., challenged the very same assignment of deed when petitioner got substituted in place of ICICI Bank Ltd. After substitution of petitioner in place of ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner filed I.A. No.135/06 u/s 19 (25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, read with Rule 22 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules to set aside the transaction effected by 1st respondent in transferring Addreley Estate in favour of Addreley Estate Ltd., under the deed of transfer presented for registration on 15th March, 2006, and pending before the Sub Registrar, Coonoor in pending Document No.5/06. Another I.A. No.67/06 was filed by the 1st respondent, M/s.Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., to permit the said applicant to complete the transfer of Addreley Estate to and in favour of its solely owned subsidiary company, i.e., M/s. Addreley Estates Ltd. 3. The DRT – I, Chennai, by its order dated 30th March, 2007, while made certain observations, but without deciding the interlocutory applications, merely passed an order of status quo with the following observations:- "9. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also material records of this case. From the records available in this tribunal, it is pertinent to mention that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner (in I.A. No.135/06 and the 2nd respondent in I.A. No.67/06). I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also material records of this case. From the records available in this tribunal, it is pertinent to mention that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner (in I.A. No.135/06 and the 2nd respondent in I.A. No.67/06). This tribunal goes by records as it stands and to determine upon the materials as on records, as it stands. A careful perusal of record establishes that if status quo order is not granted in this matter, it will cause much hardship to the bank." Though the aforesaid observation was made in favour of the petitioner, but no decision having given on merit in regard to any of the interlocutory applications, the petitioner preferred an appeal – M.A. No.83/07 before the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Appellate Tribunal also by impugned order dated 12th Nov., 2007, somehow or other, did not choose to discuss the claim on merit and affirmed the order of status quo with direction to DRT to dispose of the original application within three months, recording the following submission:- "Learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent have fairly conceded that this Tribunal may dispose of the appeal by giving suitable direction to the DRT-I, Chennai to dispose of O.A. No.23/05 within a stipulated period and also to continue the order of status quo as held by DRT in the impugned order. ......" 4. In fact, it is the respondent, M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., who requested for disposal of the original application without going into the merit of the case. The petitioner did not ask for disposal of the appeal by giving suitable direction to DRT-I, Chennai to decide the original application. For the said reason, the petitioner, when preferred review application, by impugned order dated 5th June, 2008, the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, only deleted the portion of the order, wherein consent of counsel for the petitioner was recorded. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself when it observed that the alienation of the mortgaged property done by the respondent in terms of interim order of status quo dated 15th Dec., 2005, is one of the attempted alienation when in reality sale deed has been executed and possession parted with. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself when it observed that the alienation of the mortgaged property done by the respondent in terms of interim order of status quo dated 15th Dec., 2005, is one of the attempted alienation when in reality sale deed has been executed and possession parted with. It was further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appeal itself having filed for setting aside the transaction of sale effected by the 1st respondent in respect of mortgaged property to Addreley Estates Ltd., it ought not to have once again directed maintenance of status quo, while finally disposing of the appeal without discussing the merit. The Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the petitioner bank had already substituted by order dated 2nd Feb., 2006 by DRT and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 27th June, 2006, subject to the issue being left open to be decided at the time of trial. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent. According to learned senior counsel for the respondent, the application, I.A. No.135/06 at the instance of the petitioner, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank, is not maintainable as the assignment was not properly made by M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd., in favour of the petitioner. He also referred to the assignment deed dated 31st March, 2005, and the agreement confirming the assignment deed dated 20th April, 2005 and affidavit and petition in I.A. No.559/05 to suggest that the assignment was not proper. Further, according to him, the order of substitution being under challenge, without deciding the question of substitution of the petitioner in place of M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., no decision could be given with regard to transfer in question at the instance of the petitioner. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions and documents on record. 7. From the order passed by DRT dated 30th March, 2007, it will be evident that DRT having gone through the merit and came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of petitioner, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank in I.A. No.135/06. 7. From the order passed by DRT dated 30th March, 2007, it will be evident that DRT having gone through the merit and came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of petitioner, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank in I.A. No.135/06. Though such finding has been recorded, but no determination has been made with regard to the transfer of land as effected by the respondent, M/s.Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., nor any order has been passed on I.A. No.67/06 preferred by the 1st respondent wherein it sought permission to complete the transfer of Addreley Estate in favour of M/s. Addreley Estates Ltd. It is true that the original applications should be determined on an early date, but in the said application the issue whether the transfer of mortgaged property to Addreley Estates Ltd., as alleged to have been effected by the 1st respondent in violation of the order of status quo, is proper or not and whether such transfer should be approved by allowing the 1st respondent to do so, as claimed in I.A. No.67/06, cannot be determined at the stage of final disposal of the original application, which requires determination prior to the same. In case the original application is allowed and the question of recovery of debt arises, it will be difficult for the Recovery Officer to recover the amount due on the mortgaged property, if such determination is not made prior to the decision in the original application. 8. It has been rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent that without determination of the question of substitution of the petitioner, M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank in place of M/s. ICICI Bank, the original applicant, it is not desirable to decide the question of transfer on the basis of a petition filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank. For the said reason, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal should first decide the question whether the substitution of Kotak Mahindra Bank in place of the original applicant ICICI Bank Ltd., was proper or not. For the said reason, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal should first decide the question whether the substitution of Kotak Mahindra Bank in place of the original applicant ICICI Bank Ltd., was proper or not. As we find that both the DRT-I, Chennai and Appellate Tribunal, have failed to consider the aforesaid question, we set aside the appellate order dated 12th Nov., 2007 and the order passed in review dated 5th June, 2008, passed by the Appellate Tribunal and remit the matter for determination of the question relating to substitution and, thereafter, the legality and propriety of transfer of mortgaged property in question after hearing the parties. In the meantime, the status quo as ordered may be maintained by all the parties. The civil revision petition is disposed of. But there shall be no order as to costs.