Birendra Kumar Roy Vs Sujoy Dhar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Birendra Kumar Roy Vs Sujoy Dhar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 6th March, 2024 set aside; petition remanded to the learned trial court to decide the application seeking dismissal of the petition in limine and the impleadment application simultaneously, independently and in accordance with law after hearing all parties; Court expressed no opinion on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court could decide the application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 while the petitioner's application for dismissal of the suit, filed on 9th March, 2023, remained undecided. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The petition is remanded to the learned trial court, which shall decide the petitioners' application seeking dismissal of the petition in limine and the application for impleadment simultaneously, in accordance with law, after giving all parties an opportunity of being heard.

Key takeaways

The learned trial court shall decide the applications independently, without being influenced by the order of this Court.ratio¶13
This Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no expression made herein shall tantamount to an observation on the merits of the case.obiter¶14
The impugned order dated 6th March, 2024 stands set aside and the revisional application, along with connected application(s), if any, stands disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application CO 993 of 2024 (Birendra Kumar Roy v. Sujoy Dhar & Ors.), decided 14.07.2026 (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.), challenged the order dated 6th March, 2024 of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 1775 of 2022 (proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882). The impugned order had allowed impleadment of Sandhya Dhar and Tapati Roy under Order 1 Rule 10 and made a passing maintainability remark although the petitioner's 9th March, 2023 application for dismissal of the suit remained undecided. The High Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter, and directed the trial court to decide the dismissal and impleadment applications simultaneously, in limine, independently and after hearing all parties, expressly without expressing any view on the merits.

14.07.2026 Ct. No. 2 D/L 54 Mujahid

CO 993 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024

Birendra Kumar Roy Vs. Sujoy Dhar & Ors.

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Karmakar Ms. Papiya Roy

…for the petitioner

Mr. Somnath Bose Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya

…for the opposite party

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6^th March, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Curt at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 1775 of 2022.

2. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners in Misc Case No.1775 of 2022 are not even trustee and, therefore, had no authority to institute the proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. Learned Senior counsel submits that during the pendency of this petition, the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 6^th March, 2024 has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading Sandhya Dhar, daughter of Late Bankim Chandra Roy, Tapati Roy, daughter of late

2

Badrinarayan Dass. Learned senior counsel submits that till the application of the petitioner for dismissal of the suit filed on 9^th March, 2023 is decided the application for impleadment could not have been decided by the learned trial court. Learned senior counsel also submits that in the impugned order, the learned trial court has made a passing remark that the Misc. Case filed by the petitioners is maintainable without any discussion.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also fairly submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh consideration of the application filed by the petitioners herein for dismissal of the case and for deciding the application of Tapati Roy and Sandhya Dhar for impleadment.

4. In view of the submissions made, the petition is remanded back to the learned trial court. Learned trial court shall decide the application of the petitioners seeking dismissal of the petition in limine and the application for impleadment simultaneously in accordance with law after giving all the parties an opportunity of being heard. The learned trial court shall decide the application independently without being influenced by the order of this Court.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no expression made

3

herein shall tantamount to be an observation on the merits of the case. That the present impugned order stands set aside.

6. Accordingly, the revisional application along with connected application, if any, stands disposed of. In view of the discussion made hereinabove the impugned order is set aside.

7. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)