Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3067
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SITARAM JEW AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
ARKOPROVO GANGULY AND ORS. – Respondent
Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction | IA No. GA/2/2025 | EOS/4/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Anujit Mukherjee, Ms. Antara Biswas, Ms. Saolini Bose, Ms. S. Das Chopwdhury
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Deb, Ms. Indrani Mukherjee, Ms. Ranjana Seal, Mr. Soumajit Majumdar, Ms. Sucheta Mitra
For the defendant no.1: Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Mr. Debabrata Ray
For the defendant no.2: Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Mr. K. Chatterjee, Mr. Oishik Chatterjee
For the defendant no.3: Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Mr. Pranit Bag, Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Mr. Raja Baliyal, Mr. Rajarshi Ganguly, Mr. Vidhya Bhusan Upadhyay
For the defendant no.4: Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Aditya Mondal, Mr. Tapajit Das
The court ruled that adding a co-plaintiff is necessary to avoid potential conflicts in judgements relating to the same debottar estate.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1, Rule 10 - Application to add co-plaintiff - A non-party to the suit applied for addition as a co-plaintiff based on the removal of the mother from sebaitship on charges of bribery - The applicant claims entitlement to be the sebait as an heir. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Court decides that the existing suits related to the same debottar estate thus requiring coordination to prevent conflicting judgments - The suit in question granted time extensions peremptorily, but no further extensions are allowed. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant wishes to be added as a co-plaintiff due to their mother's removal from sebaitship, claiming he is entitled under the Arpannama. The defendant contests the locus of the applicant.
Findings of Court:
The legal representation issues arising can potentially lead to conflicting decisions hence the suit TS/910/2023 may be transferred to the High Court.
Issues: The main issues involved the legitimacy of the applicant's claim for joining the suit and potential conflicting judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserts that adding the applicant as a co-plaintiff is necessary to avoid conflicts and provide effective representation of the deity.
Result: The case is set to appear again on 15th July, 2025.
The Court : This is an application by a non party to the suit for being added as a co-plaintiff. Affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the defendant no.3 filed in Court is taken on record. The extension of time to file affidavit-in-opposition by the defendant no.2 is prayed for but in view of two extensions and the last being peremptory in nature by an order dated 26th June, 2025 the time in respect whereof has expired on 4th July, 2025, no further extension is granted.
The applicant in support of his claim to be added as a co-plaintiff in the suit has relied upon clause 9 of the Arpannama dated 31st March, 2022 by which the debottar estate was created by bequeathing immovable properties to the deity Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew. It is submitted by the applicant that his mother namely Swapna Mukherjee who is defendant no.4 in this suit being EOS/4/2025 has been removed from sebaitship by a resolution dated 20th March, 2025 on the charge of bribery and fraud against the deity. Relying upon clause 9 of the said Arpannama the applicant says that on his mother being removed from sebaitship the applicant as an heir of Swapna Mukherjee will be the sebait in her place and stead. The applicant, therefore, having become a sebait is a necessary and proper party to this suit. The applicant has expressed willingness to join as co-plaintiff in the suit. The applicant relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1918 Cal 810 (Norendra Nath Kumar and Anr. Vs. Atul Chandra Bandopadhya and Ors.) to contend that as a sebait he should be made a co-plaintiff as he is willing to be added as such co-plaintiff. The applicant has also relied upon a judgment reported in 2006 (89) DRJ 417 (Golesh Kumar Vs. Ganesh Dass Chawla Charitable Trust (Regd.)) passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has accepted the ratio laid down in Norendra Nath Kumar (supra). The applicant therefore submits that he should be added as a co-plaintiff in the suit. It is further submitted by the applicant that in the event there is any technical difficulty in the plaintiffs being represented by separate set of Advocates in the case the applicant is added as a co-plaintiff, the applicant is also willing to be represented by the present Advocate representing the plaintiffs.
On behalf of the defendant no.3 it is submitted that the defendant has no locus to file and maintain this application and is also not a necessary and proper party to this suit for which the applicant can be added either as a co-plaintiff or as a defendant to the suit. The defendant no.3 then places an order of Division Bench of this Court passed in FMA/929/2023 on 9th July, 2025. The defendant no.3 submits that the said appeal arises out of certain interlocutory orders passed in title suit no. 910 of 2023 which is now pending before the 10th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipur. The said suit relates to the same debottar estate wherein the applicant’s mother Swapna Mukherjee is a party. The said Swapna Mukherjee is the appellant no.3 in the said appeal. It also appears from the said order dated 9th July, 2025 that an application by Somesh Mukhopadhyay, the applicant herein for being added as a party to the suit being title suit no. 910 of 2023 is pending. The Division Bench while disposing of 3 applications being CAN/3/2025, CAN/4/2025 and CAN/5/2025 filed in the said appeal being FMA/929/2023 has directed the trial Court to frame a preliminary issue as to who is/are at present entitled to represent plaintiff no.1 deity first and decide the same and only thereafter proceed to decide other applications for injunction and addition of parties. On a perusal of the said order dated 9th July, 2025 it does not appear that the two suits respectively being CS/229/2024 (Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew and Anr. VS Arkoprovo Ganguly and Ors.) and EOS/4/2025 being the suit in which the application has been made by Somesh Mokhopadhyay, the applicant
