Calcutta High Court
Anil Rajkumar Mukerji And Ors vs Rt Rev Paritosh Canning And Ors on 20 June, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OD-2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APDT/6/2025
WITH
CS/111/2019
IA NO: GA/1/2025
ANIL RAJKUMAR MUKERJI AND ORS
VS
RT REV PARITOSH CANNING AND ORS
wt3
APDT/7/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
ASSOCIATION OF LA MARTINIERE ALUMNI
VS
RT. REV. PARITOSH CANNING AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : 20th June, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. K. Awasthi, Adv.
..for the appellant in Item No.2
Mr. B. N. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Adv.
Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Adv.
..for the appellant in Item No.3
Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv.
Mr. P. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Adv.
Mr. B. P. Tiwari, Adv.
..for the respondent nos.1 and 7
Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv.
..for the respondent no.2
Mr. Ritoban Sarkar Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sah, Adv.
2
Mr. Pratik Dutta, Adv.
..for the respondent nos.5 & 6
Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Rishika Goyel, Adv.
..for the respondent no.8
Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The Court: In the judgment and order impugned, at paragraphs 53
and 54 of the judgment, it is stated as follows:
"53. Mr. Bachawat submits that in the year 1967, the
decision of Governors to appoint a new Principal was
challenged on the ground that the Ex-Officio Governors did
not have the right to appoint additional Governors and as
such the decision taken by the Board comprising of 3 Ex-
Officio and 4 additional Governors was bad. He submits
that the Court was of the prima facie view that the
restriction on the Ex-Officio Governors being Christian did
not apply to the Additional Governors and the appointment
of additional Governors was valid. He submits that the
question of whether the restriction on the Ex-Officio
Governors being the exclusively Christian was valid or
required to be changed would be decided by this Court at
the final hearing of the suit. He submits that it was held
that the Board of Governors had the power to take
decisions on the appointment of the Principal.
54. Mr. Bachawat submits that in the Hon'ble Division
Bench by an Order dated 13th July, 2023, held that the
Suit No.2602 of 1967 in which the interlocutory order
dated 1st February,1968, was passed has been struck off
from the register of the suit in the year 1969, therefore, the
judgment and order dated 1st February, 1968, lost
significance as the suit in which the order was passed no
longer remains."
However, at paragraph 77 of the judgment, the Learned Single
Judge records the following:
"This Court finds that the plaintiffs have suppressed the fact
that the Old Equity Suit No.2602 of 1967 is pending before
this court and have misrepresented before the Hon'ble
Division Bench at the time of hearing of appeal that the Old
Equity Suit was struck off from the register of the suit. As
the Old equity suit is pending before this Court since the
year 1967 and in the said suit written statements were also
filed and directions for discovery and inspection were also
passed but instead of taking appropriate steps in the said
suit, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. Considering
the above, this Court finds that the suit filed by the plaintiffs
is not maintainable."
Therefore, there appears to be tremendous confusion as to whether
or not Suit No.2602/1967 which has somewhat incorrectly been described
as Old Equity Suit is pending in this Court.
The Registrar, Original Side, is requested to submit a report to us
by the next date in the above regard. The records of Suit No.2602/1967
should be produced. The records of Old Equity Suit being CS/26/1888
which was registered on January 1, 1888 should also be produced before
us.
List the matter on June 27, 2025.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
bp
