Shekhar Guha & Anr vs Shyamali Basu & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1545 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Shekhar Guha & Anr vs Shyamali Basu & Ors on 20 August, 2025

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OD-6 & 9
                                  ORDER SHEET


                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE


                                IA No.GA/1/2024
                                       IN
                                 CSOS 8 of 2024
                             SHEKHAR GUHA & ANR.
                                       VS.
                             SHYAMALI BASU & ORS.

                                IA No.GA/3/2025
                                       IN
                                 CSOS 8 of 2024
                             SHEKHAR GUHA & ANR.
                                       VS.
                             SHYAMALI BASU & ORS.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 20th August, 2025.

Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Ms. Shebatee Datta, Ms. Poulami Roy, Advocates for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee, Mr. D. Mukherjee, Mr. Soham Krishna Chatterjee, Mr. Sobhan Kr. Pathak, Advocates for defendants.

The Court : The plaintiffs resume their argument in support of the

application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs by relying upon

several judgments have tried to demonstrate that the ingredients of invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court is already pleaded in the plaint. Only the

prayer for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 was not

formally made probably by keeping in mind that the suit is an Originating

Summons Suit which is of a different kind than that of an ordinary suit. The

plaintiffs, therefore, say that if an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) can be allowed by adhering to

the principles necessary to be followed for the same then the application of

the defendants under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC cannot

stand in the way of allowing such amendment.

It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that the ground for invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court is also clearly pleaded in the application for

amendment of the plaint being GA/3/2025.

The defendants in reply contend that the judgment cited by the

plaintiffs for the purpose of allowing the amendment application deals with

a case under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC where the attack was on the

ground that the plaintiffs have no cause of action unlike that in the instant

case where the defendants have attacked the plaint on the ground that this

Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit.

It is further submitted by the defendants that mere execution and

registration of a document within the jurisdiction of this Court does not

confer a jurisdiction of this Court to receive, try and determine the suit.

The arguments, however, could not be concluded.

Let these matters appear in the list on 26th August, 2025.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) Sb/