Calcutta High Court
Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew And Ors vs Arkoprovo Ganguly And Ors on 10 July, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-17 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
IA No. GA/2/2025
In
EOS/4/2025
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS.
VS.
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 10th July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Anujit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Antara Biswas, Adv.
Ms. Saolini Bose, Adv.
Ms. S. Das Chopwdhury, Adv.
... for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Ranjan Deb, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Indrani Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Seal, Adv.
Mr. Soumajit Majumdar, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Mitra, Adv.
... for the applicant.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Debabrata Ray, Adv.
... for the defendant no.1.
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. K. Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Oishik Chatterjee, Adv.
... for the defendant no.2.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Raja Baliyal, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Vidhya Bhusan Upadhyay, Adv.
... for the defendant no.3.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Tapajit Das, Adv.
... for the defendant no.4.
The Court : This is an application by a non party to the suit for
being added as a co-plaintiff. Affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the
defendant no.3 filed in Court is taken on record. The extension of time to
file affidavit-in-opposition by the defendant no.2 is prayed for but in view
of two extensions and the last being peremptory in nature by an order
dated 26th June, 2025 the time in respect whereof has expired on 4 th
July, 2025, no further extension is granted.
The applicant in support of his claim to be added as a co-plaintiff
in the suit has relied upon clause 9 of the Arpannama dated 31 st March,
2022 by which the debottar estate was created by bequeathing
immovable properties to the deity Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew. It is
submitted by the applicant that his mother namely Swapna Mukherjee
who is defendant no.4 in this suit being EOS/4/2025 has been removed
from sebaitship by a resolution dated 20th March, 2025 on the charge of
bribery and fraud against the deity. Relying upon clause 9 of the said
Arpannama the applicant says that on his mother being removed from
sebaitship the applicant as an heir of Swapna Mukherjee will be the
sebait in her place and stead. The applicant, therefore, having become a
sebait is a necessary and proper party to this suit. The applicant has
expressed willingness to join as co-plaintiff in the suit. The applicant
relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR
1918 Cal 810 (Norendra Nath Kumar and Anr. Vs. Atul Chandra
Bandopadhya and Ors.) to contend that as a sebait he should be made a
co-plaintiff as he is willing to be added as such co-plaintiff. The
applicant has also relied upon a judgment reported in 2006 (89) DRJ
417 (Golesh Kumar Vs. Ganesh Dass Chawla Charitable Trust (Regd.))
passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court has accepted the ratio laid down in Norendra
Nath Kumar (supra). The applicant therefore submits that he should be
added as a co-plaintiff in the suit. It is further submitted by the
applicant that in the event there is any technical difficulty in the
plaintiffs being represented by separate set of Advocates in the case the
applicant is added as a co-plaintiff, the applicant is also willing to be
represented by the present Advocate representing the plaintiffs.
On behalf of the defendant no.3 it is submitted that the defendant
has no locus to file and maintain this application and is also not a
necessary and proper party to this suit for which the applicant can be
added either as a co-plaintiff or as a defendant to the suit. The
defendant no.3 then places an order of Division Bench of this Court
passed in FMA/929/2023 on 9th July, 2025. The defendant no.3
submits that the said appeal arises out of certain interlocutory orders
passed in title suit no. 910 of 2023 which is now pending before the 10 th
Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipur. The said suit relates to the same
debottar estate wherein the applicant's mother Swapna Mukherjee is a
party. The said Swapna Mukherjee is the appellant no.3 in the said
appeal. It also appears from the said order dated 9 th July, 2025 that an
application by Somesh Mukhopadhyay, the applicant herein for being
added as a party to the suit being title suit no. 910 of 2023 is pending.
The Division Bench while disposing of 3 applications being CAN/3/2025,
CAN/4/2025 and CAN/5/2025 filed in the said appeal being
FMA/929/2023 has directed the trial Court to frame a preliminary issue
as to who is/are at present entitled to represent plaintiff no.1 deity first
and decide the same and only thereafter proceed to decide other
applications for injunction and addition of parties. On a perusal of the
said order dated 9th July, 2025 it does not appear that the two suits
respectively being CS/229/2024 (Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew and
Anr. VS Arkoprovo Ganguly and Ors.) and EOS/4/2025 being the suit in
which the application has been made by Somesh Mokhopadhyay, the
applicant, are pending in connection with the self-same debottar estate
wherein the representation of the deity is an issue. In fact Swapna
Mukherjee and Somesh Mokhopadhyay the applicants, Raktima
Chatterjee and Shubhodeep Ganguly were represented before the
division bench either in capacity of appellant or intervener or defendant
by the same set of advocates but there is no reference to the said two
suits against their submissions in the order of the Division Bench dated
9th July, 2025. The direction of the Division Bench in its order dated 9 th
July, 2025 which clarifies that the said Bench had not gone into the
merits of the matter in connection with the issues in the suit but have
directed framing of a preliminary issue as aforesaid. In the event this
preliminary issue is framed and decided there is every likelihood of
conflicting decision that may be passed by the District Court at Alipore
and this Court while hearing the aforesaid two suits or applications in
connection therewith.
It appears to this Court that the said suit TS/910/2023 is
required to be transferred to this Court in exercise of its power under
Clause 13 of Letters Patent, 1865 to avoid conflicting judgments in
future. The defendant no. 3, applicant and Raktima Chatterjee and the
plaintiffs in EOS/4/2025 are agreeable to the suit being transferred to
this Court but the learned Advocates representing the defendant nos. 1
and 2 pray for an adjournment to take necessary instructions.
Let this matter appear on 15th July, 2025.
It is expected that neither of the parties in the Title Suit no.
910/2023 now pending before the learned 10 th Civil Judge (Senior
Division) at Alipore who are also parties to the suits being EOS/4/2025
and CS/229/2024 shall take any steps between 11 th July, 2025 and 15th
July, 2025 in the said suit being TS/910/2023 by filing any application
therein.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
Sb/mg/S. Mandi
