Usha Khemka vs Rekha Bajaj And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 280 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Usha Khemka vs Rekha Bajaj And Ors on 29 January, 2026

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

OD-1
                                IA No.GA/2/2026
                                In APOT/70/2025

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                Original Side


                                        USHA KHEMKA
                                            -VERSUS-
                                        REKHA BAJAJ AND ORS.

BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
             And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date : 29th January, 2026.

                                                                        Appearance:
                                                        Ms. Usha Khemka (in person)
                                                                    ...the appellant.

                                                               Mr. Subir Banerjee, Adv.
                                                    ...for the respondent Nos.3-5 & 7.

The Court :- IA No.GA/2/2026 is an application for restoration.

Appellant appears in person.

Appellant is a lady.

Appellant was sought to be represented by a constituted attorney on

the earlier date. Finding that we informed the constituted attorney that since

she was not an Advocate she cannot be permitted to represent the appellant.

We adjourned the matter in order to allow the appellant to engage an advocate.

Today appellant appears in person. We repeatedly enquired of her as

to whether she would like to engage an advocate for herself. The answer is that

she wants her daughter to represent her as her constituted attorney.

We are of the view that since the person through whom the appellant

seeks representation is not a qualified advocate, such person cannot be allowed

to represent and act as an advocate in a Court of law on behalf of the

appellant.

The application for restoration is verified by a constituted attorney.

The ground for restoration is that the constituted attorney could not be present

when the matter was called on. The constituted attorney is not an advocate.

The grounds shown, therefore, cannot be accepted as sufficient.

In such circumstances, we are not in a position to allow the

application for restoration.

Accordingly, IA No.GA/2/2026 is dismissed.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)

(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)

A/s.