Allowed¶13

Gita Ghosh v. Indira Mukherjee and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 May 2025CO/1162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order 6 Rule 16 CPC; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; striking off additional written statement; repetition of facts; additional facts in pleading; amendment of written statement; Probate Suit No. 22 of 2015; Additional District Judge, First Track Court-II, Howrah; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; C.O. 1162 of 2024; decision dated 06.05.2025; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; petitioner Smt. Gita Ghosh (Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee); opposite party no.1 Smt. Indira Mukherjee (Mr. Debanjan Banerjee); impugned order dated 9th January, 2024 set aside; C.O. allowed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 9th January, 2024 set aside; C.O. 1162 of 2024 allowed; no order as to costs. ¶13

Gita Ghosh Vs Indira Mukherjee and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

Sl. 149 06.05.2025 Court No.6 BP

¶2

C.O. 1162 of 2024

¶3

Smt. Gita Ghosh -versusSmt. Indira Mukherjee & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee ..for the petitioner Mr. Debanjan Banerjee ..for the opposite party no.1

¶5

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being dated 9^th January, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Track Court-II, Howrah in Probate Suit No. 22 of 2015.

¶7

By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the additional written statement was struck off.

¶8

It is not in dispute that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite parties herein was allowed and the petitioner herein was given liberty to file an additional written statement. The additional written statement filed by the petitioner pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned trial judge was struck out in exercise of power

¶9

¶10

under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the facts which the petitioner has stated in the additional written are merely repetition of the same fact.

¶11

However, after going through the written statement and the additional written statement this Court is of the considered view that certain additional facts have been stated in the additional written statement and it cannot be said that the averments made in the additional written statement are merely repetition of the same facts as mentioned in the original written statement.

¶12

For such reason, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

¶13

C.O. 1162 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶14

No order as to costs.

¶15

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

¶16

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Gita Ghosh v. Indira Mukherjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gita Ghosh v. Indira Mukherjee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goutam Dey and Anr. Vs Anu Rani Paul

Hazi Nazrul Islam and Ors. Vs Indrani Sarkar and Anr.

Alok Kumar Das and Ors. Vs Joya Sinha Roy and Ors.

Pradip Jana Vs Masema Bibi Alias Nasera Bibi and Ors.

Partha Sarathi Ganguly Vs M/S Suburban Land and Builiding Society Pvt. Ltd.

Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sankar Mondal and Ors.