The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Rameswar Pramanik & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4905 Cal

09.08.2023
Item No.1
Court No.6.
   AB
                               M.A.T. 1095 of 2019
                                       With
                                 I A CAN 1 of 2019
                             (Old CAN 12494 of 2019)

                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.
                                      Vs
                          Rameswar Pramanik & Ors.


                    Mr. Supratim Dhar          .....for the Appellants.

                    Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, Sr. Adv,
                    Mr. Mrinal Kanti Das,
                    Mr. Subhabrata Das,
                    Mr. Arindam Banerjee....for the Respondents.

In re : CAN 9841 of 2017

This application was filed before the Hon'ble

First Court by the legal heirs of the writ petitioner

no.3, who passed away during the pendency of the

writ petition. The application was for recording the

death of the writ petitioner no.3 and for substituting

the names of his legal heirs in the place and stead of

his name. The application was taken out within the

time period prescribed by law.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

respondents/writ petitioners says that although the

learned Judge had observed that an order should be

recorded allowing the application, inadvertently no

such order was recorded. The application remains

pending till date.

Learned Senior Advocate, relying on certain

authorities and also on the relevant provisions of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, says that the Appeal

Court is fully competent to allow the application to

regularize the proceedings.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State says

that there is one Division Bench judgment of this

Court wherein such a prayer was not allowed.

We have considered the Division Bench

judgment referred to by learned Advocate for the State.

That decision was rendered in the case of Kanailal

Manna & Others Vs Bhabataran Santra & Others

reported in AIR 1970 Cal 99. However, we find that in

that case, abatement had set in as necessary

application was not filed within the prescribed time

period. That case would not have any manner of

application to the facts of the present case where the

application was taken out within time.

Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the

application, treating the same as on day's list.

Let the name of the writ petitioner no.3 be

struck out from the records of the Hon'ble First Court

as also records of the present appeal. Let the names of

the applicants in this application be substituted in the

place and stead of the name of the deceased writ

petitioner no.3. Let necessary amendment be carried

out in the Hon'ble First Court's cause papers as also

cause papers of the appeal by the department within a

fortnight from date.

Leave is granted to learned Advocate to file

vakalatnama on behalf of the substituted respondents

in the appeal.

CAN 9841 of 2017 is, accordingly, disposed of.

In re : M.A.T. 1095 of 2019, CAN 12494 of 2019

Hearing is concluded. Judgment is reserved.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)