Calcutta High Court
Romit Mitra vs Shyamal Kumar Mitra & Ors on 24 February, 2021
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
OD-10 & 11
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
(Via Video Conference)
IA No.: GA 13 of 2021
In
CS No. 135 of 2017
ROMIT MITRA
VERSUS
SHYAMAL KUMAR MITRA & ORS.
IA No.: GA 12 of 2020
In
CS No. 135 of 2017
ROMIT MITRA
VERSUS
SHYAMAL KUMAR MITRA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 24th February, 2021.
Appearance:
Mr. Souvick Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Arijeet Doss Mullick, Adv.
Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Meghnath Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Sarkar, Adv.
The Court :- In a suit for management and administration of the trustee estate, two applications are taken up for analogous hearing.
In point of time, IA No.: G.A. No. 12 of 2020 is first. It is at the behest of the defendant nos. 1 to 5. In point of time IA No.: G.A. No. 13 of 2021 is second. It is at the behest of the defendant nos. 8 and 9. 2
The suit was instituted on June 19, 2017 after obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
From time to time diverse orders were passed.
By an order dated December 22, 2017, the Board of Shebaits were constituted.
The Court is informed that there is no alteration of such Board of Shebaits till date due to any order of Court or otherwise.
Consequently, the Board of Shebaits of the two deities in the suit are as follows:-
Group A Mr. Bhaskar Mitra, and Mr. Sudip Mitra Group B None Group C Mr. Susmit Mitra Group D Mr. Debasish Mitra, Group E Mrs. Kakali Mitra Group F Mr. Subhendu Mitra
The suit is for administration and management of the estate of two deities. The deities are defendant nos. 8 and 9. The deities are said to be represented by the next friend Mr. Sudip Mitra.
The defendant nos. 1 to 5 contend that, by a registered deed Mr. Sudip Mitra was disowned by his father as his son. Such fact came to light and to the knowledge of the defendant nos. 1 to 5 subsequent to the order dated December 22, 2017. It is the contention of the defendant nos. 1 to 5 that, by reason of Mr. Sudip Mitra being disowned as the son of his father, he is disqualified to be treated as the next friend of the two deities. The plaintiff unilaterally appointed Mr. Sudip Mitra as the next friend of the two deities. Therefore, given such fact of 3 disownment, the Court should direct that Mr. Sudip Mitra should not represent the two deities as their next of friend.
Although, the defendant nos. 1 to 5 seek removal of Mr. Sudip Mitra as the next friend of the two deities, there is no prayer of recall of the order dated December 22, 2017 by which, Mr. Sudip Mitra was appointed as a member of the Board of Shebaits representing Group A. There are seven branches of the family. Each branch elects its Shebaits. It is on the basis of such formula that the Board of Shebaits was constituted by the order dated December 22, 2017.
There are Shebaits of the two deities. The Court is informed that they are about 46 Shebaits for the two deities. Although it is the prerogative of the plaintiff as to who are the defendants in the suit and how they are described but since this is a suit under Order I Rule VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it is just and proper that the entire body of the Shebaits get to decide who represents the two deities as their next friends.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct Mr. Bhaskar Mitra who is a member of the Board of Shebaits to convene a meeting of the Shebaits with a notice of fifteen days, to decide who represents the two deities as the next friend. It is clarified that, Mr. Sudip Mitra who is described as the next friend of the two deities is entitled to put himself up for election as the next friend of the two deities in such meeting. It will be open to all the Shebaits to offer their candidature in such election, if they want to. Mr. Bhaskar Mitra member of the Board of Shebaits will invite all the Shebaits to propose the name of the person who should represent the two deities as the next friend in the litigation. He will afford the Shebaits seven days from the date of his notice to submit their candidature. He will, thereafter, convene the general meeting as directed with a 4 gap of fifteen days from the date of the notice. Voting must take place by secret ballot.
List the application being IA No.: G.A. No. 12 of 2020 four weeks hence. Mr. Bhaskar Mitra is requested to submit a report as to the result of the meeting on such date.
IA No.: G.A. No. 13 of 2021
In a suit for management and administration of the estate of two deities, the next friend of the defendant nos. 8 and 9 applies for an order of injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 5 from creating obstruction and/or resistance in respect of right of worship including daily deb seba of the two deities.
The appointment of Mr. Sudip Mitra, the applicant in this application, as the next friend of the two deities is being disputed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 applied by way of an application being G.A. No. 12 of 2020 seeking removal of Mr. Sudip Mitra as the next friend of the two deities.
In such application, by an order dated February 24, 2021, Mr. Bhaskar Mitra, a member of the Board of Shebaits was directed to convene a meeting of the Shebaits for the purpose of deciding the Shebait who will represent the two deities in the litigation.
Such application was made returnable four weeks from the date of the order.
Mr. Sudip Mitra claims that, he is not allowed to participate in the daily Sheba Puja of the two deities from June, 2018 by the defendant no. 1 to 5. Mr. Sudip Mitra is a member of the Board of Shebaits constituted by the order dated December 22, 2017.
5
Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant nos. 1 to 5 submits on instructions that Mr. Sudip Mitra never participated in the daily Sheba Puja and, therefore, the question of preventing Mr. Sudip Mitra from participating in the daily Sheba Puja does not arise. He denies the allegation made by Mr. Sudip Mitra.
In such view, it would be appropriate that Mr. Sudip Mitra and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 are permitted to video record the daily Sheba Puja. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 will no doubt, as their stand is that, they are not preventing Mr. Sudip Mitra to participate in the daily Sheba Puja will facilitate the participation of Mr. Sudip Mitra in the daily Sheba Puja. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 will video record the participation of Mr. Sudip Mitra in the daily Sheba Puja. So far as distribution of the daily bhog and prasad is concerned, again the parties to the proceedings including Mr. Sudip Mitra are at liberty to video record the distribution of the bhog and prasad of the daily Sheba Puja.
List the application being IA No.: G.A. No. 13 of 2021 four weeks hence.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) To/S.Bag.