OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APDT/26/2024 WITH CS/8/2016 KARNANI MANSION RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONAND ANR VS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANR BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA And The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date :7th May, 2025.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv. Mr. AltamashAlim, Adv.

Mr. SaptarshiBhattacharjee, Adv.

..for the appellant.

Mr. SabyasachiChaudhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. ShounakMukhopadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Neelesh Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. A. Poddar, Adv. ..for the respondent.

The Court:-The present appeal arises out of a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on July 03, 2024 in CS/8/2016.

The sole ground of challenge to the said judgment is that the learned Single Judge did not have determination to hear the matter on June 12, 2024, when it was last heard before passing judgment.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on aNotification dated May 24, 2024 whereby the roster/determination of the Original Side as well as the Appellate Side was published by order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court. As per the said determination/roster, the learned Single Judge in question did not have the determination to hear suits of the year2016 on the relevant date,that is, on June 12, 2024, on which the matter was last heard according to the appellant. As such, it is contended that the said judgment is vitiatedby lack of jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel argues that the Chief Justice of a High Court, although “the first among equals” on the judicial side, is the sole repository of powers in the administrative side to assign duties and matters and to constitute the Benches ofthe said High Court.

In support of such contention, learned Counsel cites a Co-ordinate Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Sohan Lal Baid Vs. State Of West Bengal and others reported at AIR 1990 Cal 168 where the proposition was laid down that the cardinal position cannot be overlooked that for the subject matter jurisdictionto be exercised, the case must be legally brought before the concerned Court having determination and that the judgment pronounced by the Court, when notinvestedwith jurisdiction, is void. While coming to such conclusion, the Co-ordinate Bench took into consideration several statutes, inter alia referring to the High Court Act or the Charter Act, 1861, as well as the Letters Patent dated May 14, 1862 for the High Court of Judicature to be established in Bengal, apart from the Government of India Act, 1915 and the synonymous Act of 1935 as well as several precedents.

Learned Counsel for the appellant next cites a three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH CHAND AND OTHERS reported at (1998) 1 SCC 1, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, relied on the judgment rendered in Sohan Lal Baid (supra) and came to the conclusion that the administrative control of the Supreme Court vests in the Chief Justice of India and as such it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court, both judicial and administrative.

The jurisdiction of the Benches of the Supreme Court, it was reiterated, on assigning, is limited only to such cases as allotted by the said Bench by the Chief Justice or under his direction.

Learned Counsel next refers to a Five-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported at (2018) 1 SCC 196 in support of the same proposition. The next judgment citedon behalf of the appellant is a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others Vs. AI- Sumama Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Othersreported at 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 3028. The Co-ordinate Bench, upon considering all the judgments in the field, reiterated that the Puisne Judges can only take up the work which is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or on his direction. No Judges or Bench of