Dr. Nasim Akter Vs Aminul Islam & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Nasim Akter Vs Aminul Islam & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; the entire matter to be decided fresh by the learned Trial Court taking into consideration the objections/written statement of the applicants for addition of party in FA 31 of 2016 (respondent nos. 19A and 19B); issues may be recast and the Trial Court may call for fresh evidence, with all parties at liberty to adduce further evidence, failing which the judgment may be rewritten on existing evidence; the applicants may seek similar relief before the Trial Court; CAN 10 of 2025 left undecided pending the Trial Court's determination of the nature of the property; no order as to costs; TCR to be sent down immediately.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside and the suit decided afresh by the learned Trial Court after considering the objections of the applicants for addition of party in FA 31 of 2016. +3 more

Court's answer

In view of the leave granted to the applicants for addition of parties in FA 32 of 2016 and the subsequent clarification in the order dated 18th June, 2025, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The matter is required to be decided fresh by the learned Trial Court taking into consideration the objection that may be filed by the applicants for addition of party in FA 31 of 2016.

Key takeaways

Depending upon the written statement that may be filed by the applicants, issues may, if necessary, be recast and the learned Trial Court shall rewrite the judgment on the basis of the evidence that may be required further in deciding the suit.ratio¶¶3
The written statement to the effect that the property is required to be treated as secular is required to be filed before the learned Trial Court.ratio¶¶7
It would be open for the learned Trial Court to call for any fresh evidence, if necessary, to decide the issues in the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FA 271 of 2014 (with CAN 5 of 2017 (old CAN 11652 of 2017), CAN 9 of 2024 and CAN 10 of 2025), decided on 27-08-2025 by Soumen Sen, J. and Apurba Sinha Ray, J.: In view of the leave granted to the applicants for addition of parties in FA 32 of 2016 and the subsequent clarification in the order dated 18th June, 2025, the impugned judgment and decree was set aside and the matter ordered to be decided fresh by the learned Trial Court, taking into consideration the objections to be filed by the applicants for addition of party in FA 31 of 2016. Depending upon the written statement of the applicants, issues may be recast and the Trial Court shall rewrite the judgment on the basis of any further evidence required; the Trial Court may call for fresh evidence if necessary, and all parties were declared at liberty to adduce further evidence, failing which the judgment may be rewritten on the existing evidence. The submission that the property is required to be treated as secular was not decided by this Court; the applicants were directed to file a written statement to that effect before the Trial Court. Since the entire matter may be at large, the applicants/respondent nos. 19A and 19B were held free to seek similar relief before the Trial Court. The application CAN 10 of 2025 was not decided at this stage, being dependent on the Trial Court's decision on the nature of the property. No affidavit-in-opposition was called for, all allegations being deemed denied. All the appeals and applications were disposed of without costs, and the TCR was ordered to be sent down to the Trial Court immediately.

FA 271 of 2014 Item6. 27-08-2025 CAN 5 of 2017 (old CAN 11652 of 2017) CAN 9 of 2024 CAN 10 of 2025 sg Dr. Nasim Akhtar Ct. 16 Vs. Aminul Islam & Ors. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Provash Srivastava …for the appellant Mr. Arijit Bardhan Mr. Vivekananda Bose Mr. Saudull Abedin Mrs. Chitra Abedin Ms. Pooja Singh Mr. Gourab Mondal …for the applicants Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Iqbal Hussain …for the respondent no.1 1. In view of the leave granted to the applicants for addition of parties in FA 32 of 2016 and the subsequent clarification in the order dated 18^th June, 2025, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside.

In our view, the matter is required to be decided fresh by the learned Trail Court taking into consideration the objection that may be filed by the applicants for addition of party in FA 31 of 2016.

We make it clear that depending upon the written statement that may be filed by the applications, if necessary, issues may be recast and the learned Trail Court shall rewrite the judgment on the basis of the evidence that may be required further in deciding the said

2

suit.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellants in FA 32 of 2016 and Mr. Arijit Bardhan, learned Counsel, representing the applicants in for additional of party that the property is required to be treated as secular.

However, we feel that the written statement to that effect is required to be filed before the learned Trial Court. It would be open for the learned Trial Court to call for any fresh evidence, if necessary, to decide the issues in the suit unless it shows justification for fresh evidence to be taken on other materials after the issues are settled.

All the parties shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence, if required, for taking a decision on merits otherwise the court may rewrite the judgment on the basis of the existing evidence taking into consideration the quality and nature of the plaintiff’s defence that may be taken by the applicants in the written statement.

Since the entire matter may be at large before the learned Trial Court, it would be open for the applicants/respondent nos. 19A and 19B to move the learned Trial Court with the similar relief.

All the appeal and the applications are accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

The application being CAN 10 of 2025 is not required to be deiced at this stage unless the nature of the property is

3

decided by the learned Trial Court.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, all

allegations are deemed to have been denied.

TCR may be send down before the learned Trial Court

immediately.

(Soumen Sen, J.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)