[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Rajesh Jain And Anr vs Shrikant Jain & Ors on 11 March, 2026
OD-47
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS/101/1992
RAJESH JAIN AND ANR.
VS
SHRIKANT JAIN & ORS.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Date:11th March, 2026
Appearance:
Mr. AvinashKankani, Adv.
Ms. Shree Chatterjee, Adv.
...for the Defendant nos. 3 & 7
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. (vc)
...for the respondent no.1
The Court:- The Learned Advocates representing the plaintiff as well as
the appearing defendant had time and again failed to comply the order dated
17th January, 2024, seeking adjournments on 1st April, 2024, 3rd May, 2024
and 17th May, 2024. Till date the discovery and inspection of documents
have not been conducted by the Learned Advocates representing the plaintiffs
as well as the defendants as mentioned who had represented the respective
parties on the aforesaid dates as denoted in the orders passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
On 19th December, 2025 none appeared to represent either of the
parties and the matter was adjourned. On 22nd December, 2025, the Learned
Advocates representing the plaintiff as well as the defendant nos. 3 to 7
submitted that the parties were contemplating scope of an amicable
settlement and were in the process to accomplish the same and accordingly,
next date be fixed on 3rd February, 2026 and sufficient time was granted to
the concerned parties to explore the possibilities of an amicable settlement.
On 3rd February, 2026 the report of service of notice upon the defendants
was furnished by the Registrar-in-Charge, Original Side which was brought
on record.
The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties had yet
again urged the deliberation of resolving the dispute amongst the parties to
which the Court directed to file a joint affidavit indicating the willingness of
the represented as well as the unrepresented parties to settle the issue in
question. Today at the time of hearing of the instant suit the Learned
Advocates representing both the parties denied the scope of an amicable
settlement through filing of a joint affidavit since many of the parties resided
abroad whereby the joint affidavit intending an amicable settlement could not
be filed and was beyond their capability to file the same.
The conduct of the contesting parties as submitted through their
Learned Advocates evinced procrastination on the part of the parties to
deliberately delay the hearing of the instant suit pending since 1992. The
respective parties have audaciously violated the order of the Court in
conducting the process of discovery and inspection of documents and
thereafter resorted to the ploy of an amicable settlement seeking
adjournments on such ground, on multiple occasions.
The report furnished by the Registrar, Original Side as well as the
cause title of the plaint did not mention the address of the plaintiffs and the
defendants to be outside the country. The Learned Advocates representing
the plaintiff as well as the defendants were well aware of the addresses of the
same and had misrepresented this Court that an amicable settlement was
decisively in progress with an intention to seek further adjournments. The
plaintiff as well as the defendants with the intention best to their knowledge
have violated the orders of the co-ordinate Bench on several occasions as
aforementioned and have not completed the process of discovery and
inspection till date.
The plaintiffs as well as the defendants are to deposit a cost of Rs.
1,00,000/- in equal proportion at the Office of the Member Secretary, State
Legal Services Authority prior to the next date of hearing on 20th March,
2026. Subject to payment of cost ofRs. 1,00,000/- as aforesaid, the process
of discovery and inspection of documents is to be completed within 31 st
March, 2026.
Next date be fixed on 1st April, 2026.
(ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.)
DB
