This order abated the special leave petition challenging a bank's possession notice because legal heirs failed to substitute themselves within 90 days of the applicant's death under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.
Special Leave Petition is abated; interim application is not entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Order Sheet
| Case No. S | A 202 of 2024 SABYASACHI JAVED ARMAN SENGUPTA –VS- STATE BA INDIA |
NK OF |
|---|---|---|
| Date of the Order |
Order with Signature | Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary |
| 2.12.2024 (Sl. No. 13) (Order No. 4) |
Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Mr. S.K. Das. … For the Sarfaesi Applicant. Ms. Mekhala Kanji, Ms. Gitasree Chattopadhyay. … For the Respondent Bank. |
|
| Learned counsel for the sarfaesi applicant has filed IA 2800 of 2024 challenging a notice of the respondent bank dated 25.11.2024 to take possession of the property on 29.11.2024. |
||
| In the said application, the applicant has challenged the said letter and the order of the learned DM, Hooghly, with prayer to maintain status-quo in respect of the secured property. The applicant has also filed IA 2789 of 2024 annexing death certification of the applicant who died on 26.6. 2024 and filed the application for substitution of his legal heirs, such as Debabani Sengupta (wife), Dave A J Sengupta (son) and Debadarshini A Sengupta (minor) as successors of the deceased applicant, Sabyasachi Javed Arman Sengupta. |
||
| Learned counsel for the applicant issued notice to the respondent bank regarding the death of the sarfaesi applicant on 2.7.2024 and annexed death certificate to show that the applicant died on 26.6.2024. |
2
Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
Date of Order with Signature the Order Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that SA is deemed to be abated as the legal heirs of the deceased applicant failed to substitute themselves within the stipulated period of 90 days under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC. Perused the application for substitution IA 2789 of 2024 which was filed on 27.11.2024 about five months after death of the applicant, Sabyasachi Javed Arman Sengupta. As per the provision of Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, the application under Section 17(1) abated after 90 days of death of the applicant. When application under Section 17(1) is abated, interim application IA 2800 of 2024 cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, SA is abated. It is further informed to the legal heirs of the deceased applicant that they have recourse to set aside the order of abatement by filing application within sixty days of the order of abatement. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the special leave petition abated due to failure to substitute legal heirs within 90 days of death under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.
Whether the interim application challenging possession notice can be entertained after the main petition has abated.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sabyasachi Javed Arman Sengupta
State Bank of India
Ambuja Mohan Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
