OD-1 with 2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO/16/2025 WITH ACR/2/2024 IA NO: GA/3/2025, GA/4/2025 DWIPEN KUMAR HAZRA AND ORS VS SUBHENDU HAZRA AND ORS and APOT/50/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 SUBIR HAZRA VS SUBHENDU HAZRA AND ANR BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA And The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date :9th April, 2025.

Appearance:

Mr. Souvik Ghosh, Adv.

.. for the appellant.

Mr. Sudip Deb, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ipsita Ghosh, Adv.

..for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. VivekBasu, Adv.

..for the respondent no. 3.

The Court:- At the outset, an objection as to maintainability of the appeal is taken by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that in Section 12 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, there is a specific bar to any appeal being filed against any order passed,or against any opinion or advice or direction given,under the said Act.

Learned Senior Counsel also cites a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court, In the matter of Dr. Man Singh and others reported at AIR 1978 Del 274 in support of such proposition.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the applicants in the proceeding under Section 7 of the 1920 Act are not the appellants before this Court. It is contended that on a conjointreading of Sections 7 and 12 of the 1920 Act, it transpires that the bar relating to appeals operates against a person who applies under Section 7 and not to others.

However, in our considered opinion, the bar under Section 12 of the

1920 Act applies in its full rigour not only to appeals preferred by the applicants under Section 7 but in general, in respect of “any order” passed under Act or against any opinion or advice or direction given under the Act.

We are, thus,ad idemwith the ratio laid down in the cited judgment of the Delhi High Court, sinceboth the 1920 Act and the Letters Patent have statutory origin andoperate on a parallel footing under the umbrella of the Constitution of India.The provision of appeal in the Letters Patent is not a constitutional remedy of judicial review, and as such the same cannot override the specific bar contained in another statute.

That apart, since orders passed under section 7 and/or the rights conferred under Section 7 of the 1920 Act emanate from the said Act itself and are not general law remedies, appeals or other challenges against any order passed under the said provision are also governed by the self-same statute. Appeal is a creature of statute and it is the statute conferring the right of appeal which is to be referred to for ascertaining the contours of such appeal.

In the event there was no provision of appeal at all in the 1920 Act, we could very well haveconsidered the provisions of the Letters Patent to carve out an appellate remedy insofar as the impugned order is concerned. However, we are loathe to interfere byentertaining the appeal in the teeth of the specificbar provided under Section 12 of the 1920 Act.

Accordingly, APO/16/2025 and APOT/50/2025 are dismissed as not maintainable.

GA/1/2025 filed in APOT/50/2025 as well as GA/3/2025 and GA/4/2025 filed in connection with APO/16/2025 arealso dismissed consequentially.

It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties and it will be open to the appellants to prefer a challenge against the order impugned herein before an appropriate Court/Forum if law so permits. Interim order passed in connection with the appeals, if any, stands vacated.

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

(UDAY KUMAR, J)

Arsad, AR(CR)