Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 808 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 11 February, 2026
OD-6
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS/162/2022
IA NO:GA/3/2026
HELIOS DIAGNOSTIC AND HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
VS
SRI ANIRBAN PAL CHAUDHURY AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : 11TH February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Ritzu Ghosal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sayantan Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Anirban Ghosh, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. S. Sil, Adv.
...for the defendant No.1
Mr. Anirban Pramanick, Adv.
Mr. P. Nath, Adv.
Ms. B. Dey, Adv.
...for the defendant Nos. 2 & 3
1.
Counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that as per the liberty given by
the Appellate Court, the defendant has filed the written statement along
with the counter-claim in the department. The Section Officer attached to
the Office of the learned Master and the Official Referee has filed the
report stating that the written statement along with the counter-claim
filed by the defendant no.1 is defective on the ground that (1) signature
of the defendant no.1 is not present in the page no.15 below the prayer
portion, (2) pleadings in the written statement contains excess lines in
terms of the Chapter VII Rule 1 of the High Court Rules.
2. Counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that defendant no.1 will take
appropriate steps to rectify the defects as pointed out by the department.
3. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the defendant no.1,
the defendant no.1 is directed to rectify the defects by 13 th February,
2026. After rectifying the defects in the written statement, the copy of the
written statement shall be handed over to the Advocate-on-Record of the
plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff is liberty to file additional written statement, if any, to the
counter-claim within a period of 30 days.
5. Defendant nos.2 and 3 have filed an application for deletion of their
names from the suit. The defendant no.3 submits that the defendant
no.3/bank has in terms of the order passed by the DRT returned the
original title deed to the defendant no.1 and there is no proceeding
pending before the DRT and there is no claim pending against the
plaintiff or the defendant no.1.
6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the defendant no.3.
Perused the application. This Court finds that the defendant no.3 is not
the necessary party in the present suit for adjudication of the matter.
Accordingly, names of the defendant nos.2 and 3 are deleted from the
cause title of the plaint.
7. The Department is directed to correct the cause title and the plaintiff is
directed to file the amended copy of the plaint within a period of two
weeks after serving the copy to the learned counsel for the defendant.
8. List the matter on 17th March, 2026.
9. In view of the above, GA/3/2026 is disposed of.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
S.De
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!