Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Chhaya Bhattacharjee & Anr vs Mainak on 30 August, 2022
2
30.08.2022
Ct. No. 32
rrc
FAT 134 of 2022
with
CAN 1 of 2022
with
CAN 2 of 2022
(Chhaya Bhattacharjee & Anr. Vs. Mainak
Bhattacharjee & Ors.)
Mr. Arnab Roy
Mr. Satyam Mukherjee
Ms. Sayani Ahmed
..... For the appellants
Mr. Siva Prasad Ghose
Ms. Debjani Ghosh Roy (Deb)
..... For the respondent nos. 1 & 2
The present appeal has been filed challenging judgment
and decree dated 30th March, 2022 passed by learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court at Barasat, North 24-
Parganas in Title Suit No. 119 of 2013.
In connection with the aforesaid appeal, an application
being CAN 2 of 2022 has been filed.
Re : CAN 2 of 2022
The aforesaid application is for substitution on the
death of the appellant no. 1, namely, Chhaya Bhattacharjee.
The present application has been filed by Dipa
Ganguly claiming herself to be the married daughter of
the appellant no. 1.
From the statement made in the application, we find
that the original appellant no. 1 had died intestate on 6th
July, 2022 leaving behind and surviving Dipa Ganguly,
the applicant no. 1 and Raju Bhattacharjee, as her only
legal heirs and representatives.
From the statements made in the aforesaid
application we find that Raju Bhattacharjee the proposed
proforma respondent no.8 is not inclined to participate in
the instant appeal and for the aforesaid reason he has
been arrayed as proposed proforma respondent no.8. We
find that the aforesaid application for substitution has
been filed within the period of limitation.
Mr. Roy appearing in support of the aforesaid
application submits that the applicant no.1(a) as also
proposed proforma respondent no.8 are major and sui
juris. He submits that inasmuch as the proposed
proforma respondent no.8 is not inclined to participate in
the instant appeal, the applicant should be substituted in
place and stead of the deceased appellant no.1 and the
other legal heir of the deceased appellant no.1 that is
Raju Bhattacharjee be arrayed as proforma respondent
no.8 in this appeal.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate enters appearance on
behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. He does not
oppose the aforesaid application.
In such circumstances as aforesaid, we direct that
the death of the appellant no. 1 be recorded and in her
place and stead the applicant no. 1, wife of Ramkrishna
Ganguly, 91, Manirampur Govt. Colony, P.O & P.S. -
Barrackpore, Dist.- 24-Parganas, Kolkata - 700 120 be
substituted and Raju Bhattacharjee, son of Paritosh
Bhattacharjee, 82/48, Gour Sohagini Apartment, 2nd
Floor, Middle Road, Anadapuri, Kolkata - 700 122 be
added as a proforma respondent no.8. The Office is
directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause
title of the memorandum of appeal.
The application being CAN 2 of 2022 is, accordingly,
disposed of.
Re: CAN 1 of 2022
This is an application, inter alia, praying for an order
of injunction restraining the opposite party nos. 1 and 2
from changing the nature and character of the suit
property.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the
opposite party/respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that he
intends to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the aforesaid
application.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks
from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week
after the Vacation.
Let the aforesaid application being CAN 1 of 2022 be
listed two weeks after the Vacation.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
