Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 336 (CAL)

Kamala Adhikary v. Manika Das

2016-04-08

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2016
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. : 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 28, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, North 24-Parganas at Barasat in Money Appeal No. 1 of 1998 thereby, setting aside the judgment and decree dated January 27, 1987 passed by the learned 4th Court of Munsiff, Sealdah in Money Suit No. 68 of 1967. 2. As submitted by both Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocates appearing for the appellants and the respondents respectively, the original plaintiff, Sudhir Kumar Adhikary had filed the aforementioned money suit claiming, a decree for recovery of arrear rent in respect of the suit property situated at 2, M.M. Feeder Road, P.S. Belgharia, Kolkata 700 056 against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Ajit Kumar Das, who died during the pendency of the suit. After the death of the original defendant, his heirs and legal representatives, being the respondents in this appeal, were substituted as the defendants in the money suit. The learned trial Judge decreed the said money suit in favour of the original plaintiff. The respondents carried the said decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in appeal, being Appeal No. 1 of 1988, before the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Barasat. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned lower appellate Court, the sole respondent plaintiff died and an application was filed before the learned lower appellate Court for substituting his heirs and legal representatives, being the appellants in this appeal. However, without disposing of the said application and substituting the present appellants in the said appeal, the learned lower appellate Court passed the impugned judgment and decree and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in said money suit. 3. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the Division Bench of this Court framed the following substantial question of law. “Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge notwithstanding the fact that an application for substitution on the death of the plaintiff-respondent, namely, Sudhir Adhikary, was not allowed by the learned first appellant court below, and, as such, the decree was passed against a dead person.” 4. Mr. Mr. Singhvi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants contended that when the application had already been filed before the learned lower appellate Court for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff-respondent, the learned lower appellate Court committed an error of law in passing the impugned judgment and decree, without substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff-respondent. According to him, the judgement and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is against a dead person and the same is nothing but a nullity. Thus, he submitted that this Court would allow the present second appeal. 5. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents did not dispute the factum of filing of the application for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff-respondent, since deceased, before the learned lower appellate Court and that the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned lower appellate Court without substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff-respondent. 6. In view of the undisputed facts mentioned above, there is no doubt that that the learned lower appellate Court committed an error of law by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, without substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the sole deceased respondent-plaintiff. In the present case, the judgment and decree passed by the leaned lower appellate Court against a dead person is a nullity. Thus, the second appeal is bound to succeed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court in Money Appeal No. 1 of 1988 stands set aside. 8. Let the lower courts’ records be forthwith sent down to the learned Court below. 9. On the prayer of both Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the learned court below is requested to dispose of the appeal, after substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff-respondent, as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 10. With the above directions, this second appeal stands disposed of. 11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. Let, Urgent certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties, subject to compliance of all the requisite formalities.