SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2811

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ARIJIT BANERJEE, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ
PRASUN BHATTACHARYYA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. NITA BHATTACHARYYA – Respondent
IA NO. GA/2/2025 | EC/277/2019 | CS/3/2005 | APOT/320/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Chama Mookherji, Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Ms. Reshmi Nehar
For the Respondents: Mr. Deep Narayan Mukherjee, Mr. Subrata Das, Mr. Debayan Ghosh

The amendment of cause title following an appellant's death allows inclusion of legal heirs as proper parties.

Headnote:The Original Side Rules of this Court were analyzed regarding the technical objection raised concerning the cause title of the appeal after the appellant's demise. The court recognized the need to amend the cause title to include the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, allowing the widow and two daughters to be substituted. The judgment highlighted the court's decision to carry out the necessary amendments promptly and noted the absence of material irregularity in the cause title’s amendment process. The appeal was subsequently scheduled for a future hearing date.

..for the respondent no.1 Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

The Court: The appellant passed away on March 13, 2025, during the pendency of this appeal.

The present application has been taken out by the widow of the appellant for recording the death of the appellant and bringing on record the names of the legal heirs of the appellant/defendant no.1(a), namely, Prasun Kumar Bhattacharyya.

We find from the averments made in the petition that the deceased appellant is survived by not only his widow, who is the present applicant, but also two daughters by the names of Aakanksha Bhattacharyya and Palki Bhattacharyya, as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the petition.

Learned advocate for the respondent/plaintiff says that the cause title of the present application is defective.

The name of the respondent no.4, Smt. Sweta Banerjee, could not have been struck off in the manner in which it has been done. The relevant provisions of the Original Side Rules of this Court have not been followed.

We are of the view that the aforesaid objection is technical in nature. The fact remains that the name of Sweta Banerjee was struck off from the array of respondents by the executing Court. Therefore, the cause title of the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal also shows the same deletion. We find no material irregularity in this regard.

We, therefore, allow this application.

Let the name of the present appellant be struck off from the cause title of the appeal papers and the names of the present applicant and the two daughters of the deceased appellant, as mentioned above, be substituted in the place and stead thereof.

Let the department carry out the necessary amendment to the cause title of the appeal papers within a fortnight from date.

Let copies of the amended cause title be made available to learned advocates for the respondents after the amendment is carried out.

GA/2/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top