Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bacchu Ranjan Das vs Subhasindu Das & Ors on 26 September, 2022
Author: Subhasis Dasgupta
Bench: Subhasis Dasgupta
26.09.2022 Item No.4 & 5 Ct. No.7 CHC C.O.2726 of 2022 Bacchu Ranjan Das Vs. Subhasindu Das & ors.
With C.O.2334 of 2022 Banani Ghosh Vs. Subhasindu Das & ors.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee ...for the petitioner in C.O.2726 of 2022 Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Abir Lal Chakravorti ...for the petitioner in C.O.2334 of 2022 Mr. Debdoot Mukherjee, Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharya, ...for the opposite party nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 Mr. Gourav Sengupta ...for the opposite party nos.6, 7, 8 Both the revisional applications are taken up together for the issues involved in both the cases being intermingled with each other, and also on the prayer of parties to this case.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in C.O.2334 of 2022, submits that Special Officer was appointed in a suit under Section 92 of the Indian Trust Act on the prayer of the 2 plaintiffs/petitioners, and subsequently, the Special Officer, by the order impugned, has been removed upon leveling some allegations against the Special Officer, without taking any objective action therefor under the law.
Such removal of Special Officer without affording an opportunity of hearing to Special Officer is absolutely contrary to law, Mr. Chatterjee argues.
As per submission disclosed by Mr. Chatterjee, that there has been no change over taken place in the meantime from learned Special Officer to newly constituted committee.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in C.O.2726 of 2022, submits that keeping the application pending for addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., a committee of 13 members has been constituted subsequent to furnishing names of committee members by both plaintiffs and defendants, in a collusive suit, under Section of 92 of the Trust Act.
Mr. Roy further contends that the court below ought to have considered prayer for addition of the parties, prior to making constitution of an ad hoc committee, on the strength of names jointly being furnished by the petitioners/plaintiffs and defendants, as regards constitution of committee members. 3
Mr. Devdoot Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs submits that all necessary parties having interest to the pending litigation have not been impleaded in this case and without making impleadment of necessary parties, the revisional application is not maintainable.
It is contended by the opposite parties that since the Special Officer discharged function in a manner contrary to the interest of trust property, and after making contravention of the desire of the original creator of the Trust, removal of Special Officer was felt obligatory, and for the due maintenance of the affairs of the Sangha, there has been a constitution of ad hoc committee of 13 members, as per order of the court below, which is simply to run the show of the "Sangha", and nothing else.
Regarding the objective action taken against the Special Officer, it is disclosed by the opposite parties/plaintiffs, that there has been complaint lodged raising allegations against the Special Officer, but he has no instruction at the moment, whether specific case has been started against the Special Officer in the meantime or not.
Regarding violation of the natural justice, while making removal of the Special Officer, it is contended by the opposite parties/plaintiffs, that written explanation submitted by the Special Officer has been 4 considered by the court below, which seems to be a disputed question of facts and law. As the Special Officer has been removed by the order impugned without affording an opportunity of hearing, there lies necessity of intervention. The core issue thus raised needs to be addressed touching upon the merits of the case. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 7 th June, 2022, may not be given effect to till the end of November, 2022.
A notice be issued upon the other necessary parties, still left unjoined.
Mr. Chatterjee is given liberty to take appropriate action for causing proper implication of the parties to this case.
Opposite party nos.1 to 4 (plaintiffs) are given liberty to file opposition in the form of affidavit, if any to respond the revisional applications within second week after Puja Vacation of this Court, upon supplying a copy well in advance to the learned advocate for the petitioners. Reply, if there be any, within one week thereafter.
Liberty to mention for inclusion in the list in the third week of November, 2022.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)