[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew And Ors vs Arkoprovo Ganguly And Ors on 9 December, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-7, 14 TO 23, 28 TO 31, 39 & 40
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
EXTRA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA/4/2025
In
EOS/4/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/1/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/2/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/3/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
2
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/4/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/5/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/6/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/7/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/8/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
3
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/9/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/10/2025
In
EOS/6/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
SUBHODEEP GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/1/2025
In
CS/229/2024
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/3/2025
In
CS/229/2024
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/1/2025
In
EOS/4/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
4
IA No. GA/2/2025
In
EOS/4/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/2/2025
In
CS/229/2024
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ANR.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
IA No. GA/3/2025
In
EOS/4/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS.
VERSUS
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 9th December, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Shyak Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Antara Biswas, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. S. D. Chowdhury, Adv.
For the plaintiffs/petitioners.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
5
Mr. Debabrata Roy, Adv.
For the defendant/respondent no.1 (on behalf of Arkoprovo Ganguly)
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Adv.
For the defendant/respondent no.2.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.
Mr. Raja Baliyal, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Ganguly, Adv.
For the defendant/respondent no.3.
Ms. Sucheta Mitra, Adv.
For the Applicant in IA No. GA/2/2025 in EOS/4/2025.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.
For the defendant/respondent no.4 in EOS 4 of 2025 and plaintiff in CS 229 of 2024
Ms. Ranjana Seal, Adv.
For the defendant no.7 in CS 229 of 2024.
Mr. Suman Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.
Mr. Arijeet Doss Mullick, Adv.
For the defendant no.4 in EOS 6 of 2025
Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Jain, Adv.
For Gaurav Agarwal (Intervenor)
The Court:- Mr. Debasish Kundu learned senior advocate assisted by Mr.
Sukrit Mukherjee and Mr. Piyush Jain submits that his client namely, Gaurav
Agarwal who has an interest in the two companies namely, Milestone Mansions
Private Limited and Nextgen Realtors Private Limited having their respective
registered office at 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata - 700069 intends to intervene in
this matter. He further submits that the said two companies have an
agreement to develop the immovable property situate and lying at 205A and
207A, Rashbehari Avenue measuring more than 300 cottahs. Mr. Kundu
submits that his client in 2015 after coming to know about the permission
granted by the learned District Judge 24 Parganas (South) under section 34 of
the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (in short 1882 Act) approached the Court for
recalling of the order granting permission under section 34 of the 1882 Act. In
an application so filed by an order dated 31 st July, 2015, the portion of the
order dated 16th June, 2015 by which the leave was granted under section 34
of the 1882 Act was directed to be stayed.
Mr. Kundu submits that the said order is still in subsistence.
Subsequently, the clients of Mr. Kundu have also filed a separate suit being
TS/235/2018 which is also pending before the Learned Court of the 10 th Civil
Judge, Senior Division at Alipore.
It is the specific case of Mr. Kundu that neither the order dated 31 st July,
2015 nor any subsequent order, through which the interim order passed on
31st July, 2015 was extended from time to time has been placed before the
Court. It has also not been informed to Court that a suit filed by his client is
also pending before the District Court at Alipore.
Mr. Kundu submits that the suit filed by his client is admittedly filed
prior to the three suits now pending before this Court, two of which are
extraordinary suits on being transferred from the District Court at Alipore. Mr.
Kundu further submits that either hearing of the three suits pending before
this Court has to be stayed as the issues which will fall for consideration in
this suit which is prior in time will include within its fold. Majority of the
issues that will fall for consideration in the three suits now pending before this
Court. Mr. Kundu also submits that to avoid conflicts of judgments the suit
filed by his client as also the miscellaneous application on which the order
dated 31st July, 2015 was passed be transferred to this Court and be heard
along with the other three suits.
On hearing Mr. Kundu, it prima facie appears that his client is not
shebait nor does he belong to the family of the settlor but is a third
party/outsider who has some interest in the two companies which allegedly
holds an agreement with two of the shebaits.
According to Mr. Kundu's client the two shebaits Satrajit Ganguly and
Rubi Ganguli were the only shebaits at the relevant point of time when his
client enter into the development agreement.
Since Mr.Kundu's client do not belong to the family of the settlers it will
be expedient and for the ends of justice to direct Mr. Kundu's client to make
appropriate application for either stay of proceedings in these three suits or for
the transfer of the proceedings filed by his clients to this Court.
The supplementary affidavit filed in GA/1/2025 by Arkoprovo Ganguly,
the defendant no.1 is taken on record by granting leave for filing the same.
Parties intend to use an affidavit to such supplementary affidavit.
Leave is granted to the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 2 to 4 in EOS
No. 4 of 2025 to file rejoinder by 9 th January, 2026. The learned advocate for
the plaintiff no.2 has placed before this Court a letter issued by the Assistant
Assessment Collector, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC). The
plaintiff no.2 will be at liberty to disclose this letter alongwith her rejoinder.
Reply, if any, shall be filed by 28 th January, 2026.
Let this matter appear in the monthly list of February 2026.
The plaintiffs submit that an interim protection should be granted in the
form of an order of injunction restraining the other defendants from dealing
with the immovable property and necessary order in aid of the relief for delivery
up and cancellation of the document. The plaintiff no.1 also says that without
there being any interim order passed at this stage the entire proceedings will
get vitiated. However, considering only the submissions made by the plaintiffs,
the interim order cannot be passed at this stage without hearing the
defendants.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
Sb/
