IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao R.V.W.O. No. 19 of 2024 With GA No. 1 of 2024 With GA No. 2 of 2024 In CS No. 159 of 2010 Aloka Ojha & Anr.

Versus Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Limited & Ors.

Mr. Rupak Ghosh Mr. Sayantan Chatterjee Mr. Amit Kr. Nag Mr. Partha Banerjee Ms. Rishika Sarkar … For the applicants/petitioners.

Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Amritam Mandal Mrs. Ananya Chakraborty Ms. Shipra Naskar … For the respondent nos. 2 & 4.

Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit Banerjee Mr. Asoke Basu Mr. Altamas Alim … For the respondent no. 5.

Hearing Concluded On : 23.06.2025 Judgment on : 31.07.2025 Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The applicants, namely, Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal have filed this present Review Application for review of the order passed by this Court dated 12th April, 2023 in G.A. No. 21 of 2022 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010 along with an application being G.A. No. 1 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 329 days in preferring the review application and G.A. No. 2 of 2024 for staying of the order dated 12th April, 2023. The Review Application along with connected applications are taken up for hearing together.

2. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that at the internal page 6 last paragraph and page 7 second last and last paragraph of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023, it is recorded that the mother of the petitioner no.1 was the defendant no.4. He submits that Maya Devi Ojha was not the mother of Anup Ojha.

Anup Ojha is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Late Mridula Devi Ojha, who are not the defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners.

3. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the said order, it is recorded that Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Chimanlal Ojha which is also not correct. He submits that Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Late Gunvant Rai Ojha. He submits that this Court by the judgment dated 12th April, 2023, Anup Ojha was added as substituted defendant no.4 in the suit but Anup Ojha cannot be substituted in place of defendant no.4 as he is not the son of Maya Devi Ojha.

4. Mr. Ghosh submits that though this Court by an order dated 9th October, 2023 has made some clarifications but the said clarifications has not completely clarified the issue and thus the order dated 12th April, 2023 is required to be reviewed.

5. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Lily Thomas and Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 and submits that if the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.

6. Mr. Ghosh submits that while passing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has not considered the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein the application filed by Shri Bhaskar Ojha for impleading him as party to the suit was dismissed. He submits that the order dated 3th December, 2018 became final and binding upon all the parties and would operate as res judicata.

7. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the Judgment in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal and Another Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2020) 4 SCC 1 and submits that it is settled principle of law that the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength.

8. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Sultan Said Ibrahim Vs. Prakasan and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218 and submits that the principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding as well.

9. Mr. Sakya Sen, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant nos. 2 and 4 submits that Anup Ojha never claimed to be the son of Maya Devi Ojha. In the applicati