Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar
In the matter of : Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew – Appellant
Versus
Subhodeep Ganguly – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present hearing arises out of three separate applications seeking extension of the time to file written objection to an injunction application filed in a suit challenging a deed in the Trial Court.
3. The short background is that the plaintiffs/appellants, being the appellant no.1 / deity and the appellant no.2, one Swapna Mukherjee, claiming to be a Shebait of the deity, filed a suit challenging a deed, in which an ad interim prayer for injunction at the behest of the plaintiffs / appellant was refused. Challenging the same, an appeal bearing FMA 929 of 2023 was preferred before this Court. By an order dated March 03, 2025, this Court had allowed the appeal on contest, thereby granting ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants / respondents from acting on the strength of the impugned sale deed dated July 02, 2015 as well as from transferring, alienating and / or creating any third party interest or parting with possession in respect of the suit property till disposal of the injunction application pending in the Trial Court.
4. While doing so, this Court had also directed that the respondents shall fi
The court emphasized the legal duty to protect the interests of deities, treating them as perpetual minors, and allowed extensions based on good faith representations in a case involving property dis....
The court emphasized that exclusive rights to manage a religious organization and hold events must await formal judicial determination, and principles of res judicata prevent repetitive litigation on....
The defendants deserved an opportunity to file the Written Statement, but should pay costs for the delay.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the necessity of an amendment for determining the real controversy in the suit, and the need to exercise discretion judiciously and with great care.....
Amendment of plaint - Suit for injunction - Delay of 8 years in seeking amendment based on document - Relief seeking title alters nature of original suit for injunction - Not permissible.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial commencement are not permissible unless due diligence is shown, ensuring they do not alter the fundamental character of the case.
Non-compliance with court orders and failure to provide sufficient cause for delay can lead to the dismissal of a suit.
Court determined the need for clarity over representation rights of a deity amidst conflicting claims, ordering the transfer of related suits to ensure efficient adjudication.
The court has the discretionary power to enlarge the time fixed or granted by the Court, and the enlargement of time to bring the successor karta on record would not take away any of the defenses ava....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
