Jayasri Mitra vs Sheila Mitra
2021 Latest Caselaw 1493 Cal

   (09)
19.02.2021

(p.jana)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

(Via Video Conference)

CO 356 of 2021

Jayasri Mitra

-versus-

Sheila Mitra

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, ... for the petitioner.

Mrs. Chaitali Bhattacharya, Mr. Protim Chakraborty, ... for the opposite party.

Leave is granted to the learned advocate for the petitioner to

correct the cause title of the revisional application.

The present revisional application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the order no. 91 dated

October 07, 2020 passed by the 6th Court of learned Additional

District Judge at Alipore in O.S. No. 04 of 2010.

Two Wills of one Jagabandhu Ghosh is the subject-matter of

two proceedings for grant. The Will allegedly executed by said

Jagabandhu Ghosh on February 19, 1995 is the subject-matter of the

O.S. No. 4 of 2010 whereas the Will allegedly executed by him on

August 11, 1995 is the subject-matter of the Letters of Administration

Suit No. 05 of 2010. The learned Trial Judge is hearing both the said

suits analogously.

The petitioner is the plaintiff of L.A. Case No. 05 of 2010.

The petitioner in O.S. No. 04 of 2010 filed an application for

departmental enquiry on the allegation that in the Will dated August

11, 1995 the name of one Prabir Mitra has been inserted while the

said Will is in the safe custody of the learned District Judge.

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has dismissed

the said application holding that the issue has already been

adjudicated.

The petitioner was unsuccessful in getting the signature of the

said Prabir Mitra verified by a handwriting expert as his prayer for

such purpose was turned down by the learned Trial Judge thrice and

one of the orders refusing the said prayer of the petitioner was

affirmed by the High Court.

Mrs. Chaitali Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the opposite party, submits that the hearing of the suits has

been concluded and the same have been reserved for judgment.

Be that as it may, the prayer for holding departmental enquiry

on the aforesaid allegation has got no relevance with the issue to be

decided in the said two suits, as such the learned Trial Judge has

rightly refused the prayer of the petitioner, the order impugned does

not call for any interference.

CO 356 of 2021 is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties subject to compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)