Advocates Appeared:
BHABANATH DUTT, BISWANATH NASKAR, S.HAZRA

Key Points: - The general rule that ordinarily nobody other than a shebait can institute a suit in the name of the deity without a previous court order appointing him to represent the deity; such appointment is necessary for a suit by a non-shebait (!) . - The court held that the deity was not bound by the previous compromise decree since the deity was not a party to the compromise and there was no court appointment of Susama Roy as next friend; thus the suit was not barred by res judicata on those grounds (!) . - In cases where the shebaits have precluded themselves, the deity may sue through another agency (next friend) only if the Court appoints such a person to represent the deity; without such appointment, a suit by the deity in its name is not maintainable (!) . - The preferred approach is to require the Court to appoint a fit and proper person as next friend before allowing a suit by someone other than the shebait on behalf of the deity, ensuring proper representation and safeguarding the deity’s interests (!) . - The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the lower courts’ reasoning that no appointment existed in the present case (!) .

What is the requirement for representation of a deity in a suit by or against the deity?

What is the status of res judicata regarding a compromise decree in a deity’s suit where the deity was not a party to the compromise?

What is the appropriate procedure when someone other than a shebait seeks to sue on behalf of a deity and seeks appointment as next friend?