Calcutta High Court
Shyamal Kumar Mitra & Ors vs Romit Mitra & Ors on 23 July, 2018
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
O-6
APO No. 30 of 2018
GA No. 266 of 2018
in
CS No. 135 of 2017
GA No. 3754 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHYAMAL KUMAR MITRA & ORS.
Versus
ROMIT MITRA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY
Date : 23rd July, 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Souvick Mitra, Adv.
The Court : The grievance of the appellants herein is that despite the
appellants making out grounds for the removal of one of the shebaits, the trial
Court has dismissed the relevant application by a short order and without
indicating any reasons.
2
The concerned shebait represents the deities who have been arrayed as the
fourth and fifth respondents in this appeal.
The principal ground urged by the appellants is that Sudip Mitra, who is now officiating as a shebait and purports to represent the deities, was disinherited by his father in the year 1993. This fact had been deliberately concealed by Sudip Mitra while obtaining the appointment. On the appellants' application, GA No.3754 of 2017, the following short order was passed on December 1, 2017 which has been challenged herein:
"In view of Clause 6(b) of the trust deed and having regard to the fact that Mr. Sudip Mitra is not ineligible to become a shebait in terms of the said clause. (sic.) The appointment of Mr. Sudip Mitra as shebait cannot be questioned in the proceeding.
"GA No.3754 of 2017, accordingly, stands dismissed."
The first sentence appears to be incomplete. Even otherwise, the order impugned does not indicate how Sudip Mitra, despite being disinherited by his father, could have been eligible to be a shebait in terms of Clause 6(b) of the trust deed. The second sentence does not indicate why the question as to Sudip Mitra being appointed a shebait or continuing in such position could not have been raised.
Since the order impugned is completely bereft of reasons, such order of December 1, 2017 is set aside and GA No.3754 of 2017 is restored to the board of interlocutory Court with a request to the interlocutory Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
It is recorded that Sudip Mitra submits that there are documents and other materials that he needs to rely on to dispel the air of suspicion which has been 3 created by the appellants herein. It will be open to Sudip Mitra to make a prayer to file an affidavit, which the interlocutory Court, doubtless, will consider.
APO No.30 of 2018 and GA No.266 of 2018 are allowed by setting aside the order impugned dated December 1, 2017 and remanding the matter to the interlocutory Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) (ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY, J.) kc