Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 520 (CAL)

Sumita Chatterjee v. Maitreyee Sinha Roy

2012-06-18

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2012
Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order dated March 25, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Misc. Case No.301 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth shall be called ‘CPC’) for transposition of the petitioner from the category of the petitioners to the category of the opposite party of the said Misc. Case. The petitioner along with two others filed an application for obtaining Letters of Administration in respect of the properties left by deceased Pronab Kr. Sinha Roy and that application was converted into the Misc. Case No.301 of 2010. The petitioner contended, inter alia, that Pronab Kr. Sinha Roy, since deceased, was the owner of the properties mentioned in the application and that she was an attesting witness to the said Will. She put her signature on the application for Letter of Administration believing that her father had executed the Will in question. Subsequently, she realized that the Will was not genuine and as such, she prayed for transposition from the category of petitioners to the category of the opposite party in the said Misc. Case and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that the learned District Delegate has rightly rejected the application. As per her contention, she was a witness to the Will and she signed the application for Letters of Administration and also the verification. According to materials-on-record, she also signed on another copy of the application for Letters of Administration. Thus, the petitioner has taken such steps as if she treated the Will as genuine. Subsequently, she changed her attitude and filed the said application contending that the Will was a forged one and as such, she has prayed for transposition. The petitioner has also contended that she signed on some blank papers and those papers are converted into the necessary documents for the purpose of getting Letters of Administration. These are to be decided at the trial. The petitioner has also contended that she signed on some blank papers and those papers are converted into the necessary documents for the purpose of getting Letters of Administration. These are to be decided at the trial. At present, I find that, by the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, the petitioner has wanted to change her stand with regard to the Will purported to have been executed by her father. The said application for Letters of Administration was filed by the three heirs of the deceased jointly and their joint prayer was for issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of properties left by Pronab Kr. Sinha Roy. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change her stand with regard to the Will and I am of the view that the learned District Delegate has rightly rejected the application for transposition. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.