Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET APO2862010 CS1952009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRAKASH KUMAR THAKER Versus SHELLAC & FOREST PRODUCTS EXPORT & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 8th January, 2014.
Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Advocate Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Advocate Mr.S.Tewari, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Anil Kumar Dhar, Advocate for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 18.
The Court : This is a suit of 2009.
An application for special audit was refused by the learned Judge that gave rise to the present appeal.
Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend, the appellant being a member of the Export Promotion Council is entitled to raise the question of defalcation of funds by the officers of the Council.
To support his contention, he refers to page 51 of the paper book where we find, perfume, jewelleries and other personal things were purchased by various officials of Council.
Mr.Mookherjee, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Council would clarify, those were purchased as a gift item to be given to various consumers of Shellac and other forest products that are promoted abroad and/or marketed by the Export Promotion Council.
Mr.Mookherjee also informs us, the suit of 2009 is not ready as the writ of summons are yet to be served.
Mr.Banerji would clarify, it was a changed brief, the earlier Advocate-on-Record did not take any step.
Upon hearing the rival contentions, we feel, the issue could only be effectively gone into at the time of final hearing when the parties would be at liberty to produce documentary and/or oral evidence.
In deference to the desire of this Court, Mr.Mookherjee waives the service of writ of summons.
Mr.Banerji’s Advocate-on-Record assures this Court, he will supply a copy of the plaint in couRs.of this week.
Written statement be filed by the appearing respondents within four weeks from the date of service of the plaint.
Additional documents, if any, be disclosed within four weeks thereafter.
The parties would be at liberty to approach the appropriate court for hearing of the suit as soon as it becomes ready.
We make it clear, the other defendants are not appearing.
We are not sure whether they have been served or not.
The learned Judge would be free to deal with such question upon examination of records.
This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 18, that the suit is not maintainable.
The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.
(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) sd/