##PAGE1##

OD-4

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

IA NO. GA/4/2025

In TS/20/2016

IN THE GOODS OF :

MANTU DEVI BENIA (DECEASED)

-AND-

SRI PRADIP KUMAR BENIA

-VS-

SMT. SOVA GUPTA

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO

Date: 22th December, 2025.

Appearance:

Mr. Meghnad Dutta, Adv.(VC)

Mr. Lalratan Mondal, Adv.

… for the plaintiff

Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sib Sankar Das, Adv.

… for the caveatrix/petitioner

1. The applicant has filed the present application being GA/4/2025

praying for correction of the name of the defendant in the cause

title of the judgment dated 16/06/2025 passed in TS/20/2016 as

“SOBHA GUPTA” instead of “SOVA GUPTA”.

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that though in every places it is

written as SOVA GUPTA but while signing the documents she has

signed as SOBHA GUPTA.

3. The applicant submits that in the affidavit in support of caveat,

the petitioner has enclosed documents being Annexure X, the

2

Xerox copy of the Voter Id issued by the Election Commission of

India wherein the name of the defendant has been recorded as

SOBHA GUPTA. The applicant has further relied upon the

document i.e. the copy of the plaint filed by the defendant before

the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Howrah being Title suit

no. 25/2010 wherein her name is mentioned as SOBHA GUPTA

and in the said plaint in the verification as well as affidavit portion

also her name is typed as SOBHA GUPTA. He submits that

inadvertently in all the documents including in the judgment

passed by this Court on 16.06.2025 the name of the defendant is

recorded as SOVA GUPTA instead of SOBHA GUPTA.

4. The petitioner is having all the documents in the name of SOBHA

GUPTA and she has also signed in Hindi as SOBHA GUPTA.

5. The Counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant

intends to file an appeal against the judgment passed by this

Court dated 16.06.2025 but the department is not accepting the

memo of appeal along with stay application as the name of the

petitioner is not tallying with the documents and the name

appearing in the cause title of the judgment.

6. The Counsel for the defendant prays for correction of the name of

the defendant as SOBHA GUPTA instead of SOVA GUPTA in the

cause title of the judgment passed by this Court dated 16.06.2025

in Title Suit No. 20/2016.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that in every

document that is the caveat, affidavit in support of caveat and

3

other documents her name has been recorded as SOVA GUPTA

and thus at this stage her name cannot be corrected.

8. He submitted that the defendant has contested the probate

application filed by the plaintiff in the name of SOVA GUPTA now

when this Court has passed the judgment has come forward with

the plea that the name of the defendant is SOBHA GUPTA instead

of SOVA GUPTA which cannot be corrected at this later stage.

9. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Perused the

materials on record and the application. This Court find that in

every documents in Title Suit no. 20/2016 the name of the

defendant is recorded as SOVA GUPTA.

10. This Court peruses the original caveat as well as affidavit in

support of caveat wherein this Court finds that though the name

of the defendant is typed as SOVA GUPTA but she has signed the

said document as SOBHA GUPTA in Hindi.

11. This Court also finds that the defendant had filed the suit

before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Howrah wherein

the name of the defendant who is the plaintiff in the said suit is

recorded as SOBHA GUPTA and in the verification and the

affidavit portion also the name is recorded as SOBHA GUPTA. The

defendant has also disclosed the election identity card wherein

this Court finds the name of the defendant is recorded as SOBHA

GUPTA.

12. Considering the above, this Court find that there is mistake

in all application for recording the name of defendant is mentioned

4

as SOVA GUPTA instead of SOBHA GUPTA. Accordingly, in the

judgment dated 16th June,