LABANYA SINGHA ROY Vs SRI SRI ISHWAR SHRIDHAR JEW THAKUR & ORS.
Bench: Division Bemnch
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
405 of 2017 GA No 2881 of 2017 in EOS No 3 of 2012
Hon'ble Bench
Sanjib Banerjee, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Advocates
Suhrit Deb, D. Gupta, Aditya Naskar
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 29, 2016 by which the appellant has been declined permission to act as the next friend of the plaintiff-deity and have carriage of proceedings upon the death of the person who sued in the name of the deity and as the next friend of the deity.
2. It is evident from the order dated July 29, 2016 that the next friend of the deity who instituted the suit alleged that the defendant-shebaits had obtained the signature of such original next friend on blank documents and had purported to show a transaction that was not in the interest of the deity. Once, so much is evident from the plaint, the deity''s rights are liable to be protected by the Court imposing whatever conditions it may deem fit by appointing a next friend upon the death of the original friend who instituted the suit.
3. Accordingly, APO No. 405 of 2017 and GA No. 2881 of 2017 are allowed by setting aside the order impugned dated July 29, 2016 and by restoring the appellant''s applications, being GA No. 1719 of 2016 and GA No. 2525 of 2014, before the interlocutory Court. The appellant will have the right to represent the deity and have carriage of proceedings in the suit. The other conditions, which may be imposed on the appellant such that the interest of the deity is not compromised by the appellant upon obtaining carriage of proceedings, are to be dealt with by the interlocutory Court. It will be open to the interlocutory Court to impose such conditions as may be found necessary and also to consider whether a receiver should be appointed to protect the interest of the deity and the debuttar estate.
4. It is made clear that apart from giving the appellant herein the carriage of proceedings, all other matters are left open for the interlocutory Court to decide.
5. There will be no order as to costs.
