Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court

Shiw Prakash Kajaria vs Jugal Kishore Kajaria on 2 June, 2014

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

                                GA No. 201 of 2006
                                GA No. 202 of 2006
                                GA No. 203 of 2006
                                GA No.3815 of 2005
                                GA No. 868 of 2012
                                 CS No. 9 of 2005

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE



                            SHIW PRAKASH KAJARIA
                                    Versus
                            JUGAL KISHORE KAJARIA


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
  Date : 2nd June, 2014.


                                                                         Appearance:
                                                           Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
                                                                 Mr. Avijit Dey, Adv.
                                                                   ..for the plaintiff.

                                                          Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv.
                                                       ..for the defendant nos. 4 & 9


            The Court : This is a suit for partition and administration pending for

a considerable period of time as, true to the prevailing fashion, there is only

interest in interlocutory applications and no interest in the final hearing of suits.

            One or more of the parties had given an impression earlier that this

suit was inextricably connected with a suit filed in the year 1978 in which an

application for amendment of the written statement filed by one of the defendants

to retract an admission was disallowed by the single Bench, which decision was
                                          2


reversed in appeal; with the appellate Court judgment being the subject-matter of

a pending petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. Both

suits have been assigned to this Bench and have been adjourned on the ground

of the pendency of the Supreme Court matter.

            It now appears that this later suit can proceed unimpeded,

notwithstanding the earlier suit since this later suit appears to be the more

comprehensive.

            GA No.3815 of 2005 is the plaintiff's principal interlocutory

application. GA No.201 of 2006, GA No.202 of 2006 and GA No.203 of 2006 are

applications by some of the defendants for vacating or modification of the original

order passed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the ex parte ad interim order was

modified subsequently, in the presence of the contesting defendants, GA No.3815

of 2005, GA No.201 of 2006, GA No.202 of 2006 and GA No.203 of 2006 are

disposed of by confirming the subsisting order of injunction till the disposal of

the suit.    The allegations levelled by the plaintiff against the contesting

respondents and vice versa should not be deemed to have been admitted by the

relevant parties.

GA No.868 of 2012 is the plaintiff's application for recording the death of his mother, the defendant no.24. The death of the defendant no.24 on December 29, 2011, is recorded and GA No.868 of 2012 disposed of by requiring the name of the defendant no.24 to be deleted since the heirs of the defendant no.24 are already on record.

3

It is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has died on April 25, 2013. Advocate formerly appearing for the defendant no.1 and now appearing for the defendant nos.4 and 9 confirms such position. The death of the first defendant is recorded and his name is deleted from the array of parties; since his heirs other than his daughter are already on record, the daughter of the deceased defendant no.1, Smt. Lila Kasera of 17, Camac Street, Kolkata 700 017 is impleaded as the defendant no.1A.

The amendment in terms of this order should be carried out within a period of three weeks from date.

Written statements appear to have been filed by some of the defendants. The plaintiff will ensure that copies of the amended plaint are served on all the remaining defendants within four weeks of the amendment being carried out. If any defendant has not filed any written statement, such defendant may file the written statement within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the amended plaint.

The suit should be made ready for hearing in all respects by the appearing parties and others interested such that it may be taken up when it next appears in the monthly list of September, 2014. Documents should be disclosed within 12 weeks from date; inspection forthwith thereupon.

Nothing in this order will prejudice any of the parties in the previous suit or in the matter pending before the Supreme Court.

There will be no order as to costs.

4

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.