Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J
Kaushik Mitra – Appellant
Versus
Indira Ghosh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges procedural rulings following death of a party. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. amendment of cause title (Para 3) |
| 3. concerns over denial of cross-examination and participation. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. limitations on defendants' rights after being set ex parte. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. defendants can cross-examine but cannot assert new defenses. (Para 13) |
| 6. petition resolved with clarified rights for the defendant. (Para 14) |
Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, Sr. adv, Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Mr. Hazaifa Shahid ……for the Opp. Parties. 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff no.2/opposite party no.1, Ms. Indira Ghosh has died and the learned Trial Court vide order dated May 19, 2025, has, inter alia, held that suit against Ms. Indira Ghosh stood abated.
2. In the circumstances, let the name of the opposite party be deleted from the cause title.
3. Leave is granted to learned Advocate on record for the petitioner to amend the cause title.
4. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.5.2022, 11.5.2022 and 14.06.22. The facts in brief as canvassed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that a suit was filed by the opposite pa
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
