Skip to content


Ashim Guha Thakurata and ors. Vs. Benoy Kumar Chatterjee - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kolkata High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Ashim Guha Thakurata and ors.

Respondent

Benoy Kumar Chatterjee

Excerpt:


.....plaint. b) in another copy of that plaint, the amendments which arise after substitution should be clearly shown in red ink. this amended copy of the plaint should also be signed by mr.ganguly and mr.chattrerjee’s advocate on record. the department will accept such amendment and carry out the same in the reconstructed plaint by 30th june, 2014. the copy original plaint and another copy thereof showing amendments should be filed by the advocateson-record for the parties in the department by 10th june, 2014. the present application (ga no.1121 of 2014) is disposed of by the above order. certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. g/ (i.p.mukerji, j.)

Judgment:


GA No.1121 of 2014 CS No.943 of 1982 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASHIM GUHA THAKURATA & ORS.Versus BENOY KUMAR CHATTERJEE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 13th May, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Santanu Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.Gautam Chakraborty, Advocate Mr.Amar Nath Ganguly, plaintiff No.1 appears in person The Court: The application, GA No.1366 of 2014 is treated as on the day’s list and disposed of by allowing Mr.Amar Nath Ganguly to file his vokalatnama in favour of plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4.

The erstwhile Advocate on record for the plaintiffs, Mr.Ajoy Roy, is directed to hand over all papers to Mr.Ganguly within 6th June, 2014.

With regard to the application taken out by the defendant’s heirs for substitution and amendment (GA No.1121 of 2014).Mr.Ganguly points out some mistakes made while suggesting the amendments.

For example in paragraph 1 of the plaint it is said in June 1980 the defendant had invited deposit of money.

Now, after the death of the defendant, substitution and amendment has to be made in the relevant parts of the plaint.

The names of his heirs cannot be substituted describing a transaction of June, 1980, when the defendant was alive.

Mr.Ganguly is correct, but in my view, the error has been inadvertently made.

Furthermore, the Registrar, Original Side, by his note dated 5th May, 2014 has submitted a report that the original plaint is lost and cannot be found out, despite an intensive search.

In those circumstances, this application is disposed of by the following orders :- a) A copy of the original plaint will be reconstructed by Mr.Chatterjee’s Advocate on record.

This reconstructed copy is to be signed by the said Advocate on record as well as Mr.Ganguly.

This copy plaint may be filed in the department.

The department is to treat this plaint as the original plaint.

b) In another copy of that plaint, the amendments which arise after substitution should be clearly shown in red ink.

This amended copy of the plaint should also be signed by Mr.Ganguly and Mr.Chattrerjee’s Advocate on record.

The department will accept such amendment and carry out the same in the reconstructed plaint by 30th June, 2014.

The copy original plaint and another copy thereof showing amendments should be filed by the Advocateson-record for the parties in the department by 10th June, 2014.

The present application (GA No.1121 of 2014) is disposed of by the above order.

Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

G/ (I.P.MUKERJI, J.)


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //