Samir Majumdar Vs Anita Roy & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Samir Majumdar Vs Anita Roy & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FAO(OS) 97/2019: directions in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the Impugned Order dated 11.03.2019 set aside, with liberty left to the learned Single Judge to pass fresh order(s) after hearing the Appellant; appeal disposed of. FAO(OS) 122/2019: Impugned Order upheld (no infirmity found); appeal dismissed.

Issue for consideration

FAO(OS) 97/2019: Whether the directions in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the Impugned Order dated 11.03.2019 (permitting defendant No.2 Shipra Chakraborty to look after the Mother and to operate the pension accounts, subject to keeping and filing the accounts in Court every six months) should be set aside, the Impugned Order having been passed without granting the Appellant an opportunity to be heard. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order allowing the Appellant (Defendant No.4) to be transposed as Plaintiff; accordingly FAO(OS) 122/2019 is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

As the Impugned Order dated 11.03.2019 had been passed without granting the Appellant an opportunity (a fact not disputed by respondents' counsel), the directions in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 thereof are set aside, leaving it open to the learned Single Judge to pass fresh order(s) after hearing the Appellant.

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing, FAO(OS) 97/2019 is disposed of.ratio¶19
Deciding the transposition application on 11.03.2019, rather than at its next-day hearing, was justified because the suit was sought to be withdrawn by the original Plaintiff; had the Court delayed the decision, it would have caused an irreversible position/situation.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

DELHI HIGH COURT (Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.) — joint order dated 04.12.2025 on twin FAO(OS) appeals, both directed at the learned Single Judge's Impugned Order dated 11.03.2019 arising from one suit for declaration, partition, permanent and mandatory injunction in which all the parties figured as Plaintiffs as well as Defendants, and whose withdrawal the original Plaintiff had sought. (1) FAO(OS) 97/2019 — BHULURANI MAJUMDAR v. SHIPRA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.: the appellant's limited grievance was the directions in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the Impugned Order, under which defendant No.2 Shipra Chakraborty — ready and willing to take responsibility for the Mother — was to look after her and was permitted to operate the pension accounts (stated monthly pension: Rs. 8,000), subject to keeping and filing accounts in Court every six months. Counsel for the appellant submitted, and respondents' counsel did not dispute, that the Impugned Order had been passed without granting the appellant an opportunity. The Bench set aside those directions, left the Single Judge free to pass fresh order(s) after hearing the appellant, and disposed of the appeal. (2) FAO(OS) 122/2019 — SAMIR MAJUMDAR v. ANITA ROY & ORS. (appellant was Defendant No.4 before the Single Judge): challenged the same-dated Impugned Order allowing his transposition as Plaintiff. Though the transposition application was listed for adjudication the next day, it was allowed on 11.03.2019 because the suit was sought to be withdrawn by the original Plaintiff and delay would have caused an irreversible position/situation. Finding no infirmity, the Bench dismissed the appeal. No statutory provision or precedent is cited; both Judges subscribed to the joint order.

$~52 & 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

FAO(OS) 97/2019 BHULURANI MAJUMDAR .....Appellant Through: Ms. Gunjan Sharma along with Appellant in-person.

versus SHIPRA CHAKRABORTY & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mansoor Ansari, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Shlok Chandra and Mr. Udit Dad, Advs. for R-2 Mr. S. K. Bhaduri, Ms. Neetu Gupta and Ms. Shreyangana Bag, Advs. for R-5.

53

FAO(OS) 122/2019 SAMIR MAJUMDAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. S. K. Bhaduri, Ms. Neetu Gupta and Ms. Shreyangana Bag, Advs. versus ANITA ROY & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mansoor Ansari, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advs. for R-2 Mr. Shlok Chandra and Mr. Udit Dad, Advs. for R-4 & 5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 04.12.2025

FAO(OS) 97/2019

In this Appeal, the limited grievance of the Appellant is with regard to the observation made in paragraph nos.24 and 25 of the Impugned Order dated 11.03.2019, which read as under:

“24. Since the defendant No.2 Shipra Chakraborty is ready and

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:45:36

willing to take the responsibility of the Mother, it is ordered that the defendant No.2 Shipra Chakraborty may look after the mother as is sought. It is informed I that the pension being received is of Rs.8,000/per month only.

25. Considering the value of the pension, the defendant No.2 Shipra Chakraborty is also permitted to operate the pension accounts, subject to keeping accounts and filing the accounts in this Court every six months.”

Learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that the Impugned Order dated 11.03.2019 has been passed without granting an opportunity to the Appellant. Learned counsel representing the Respondents do not dispute this fact.

Accordingly, the directions in paragraph nos.24 and 25 are hereby set aside, while leaving it open to the learned Single Judge to pass fresh order(s) after hearing the Appellant. 4. In view of the aforegoing observation, this Appeal is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 122/2019

Through this Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of Impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the request of the Appellant [Defendant No.4 before the learned Single Judge] to transpose him as Plaintiff in the suit.

It is noted that the original Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration, partition, permanent and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, all the parties in this Appeal are Plaintiffs as well as Defendants. 7. The original Plaintiff had also filed an application before the learned Single Judge seeking permission to withdraw the suit. Thereafter, the Appellant/Defendant filed an application for transposing him as Plaintiff in the suit and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:45:36

Learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that the aforesaid application was listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge on the next day for adjudication, however, the learned Single Judge allowed the same on 11.03.2019.

It is also to be noted here that the Court was called upon to allow the application on 11.03.2019 in view of the fact that the suit was sought to be withdrawn by the original Plaintiff. If the Court had delayed the decision on the aforesaid application, it would have caused irreversible position/situation.

Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order. This Appeal is dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 04, 2025 jai/dev

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:45:36