RAJENDRA SINGH LODHA Vs. AJAY KUMAR NEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is recorded in the impugned order that his Lordship, the Hon'ble mr. Justice K. J. Sengupta has been hearing the Testamentary Suit being testamentary Suit No. 6 of 2004 (previously P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004) (in the goods of Priyamvada Devi Birla also known as Priyamvada Birla) (Rajendra singh Lodha v. Ajay Kumar Newar and Ors. ). On 9th May, 2008 when the matter appeared before the learned Single Judge, an objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court contending that there had been no lawful assignment of the Testamentary suit to the learned Single Judge. On that date the learned Single Judge briefly noticed the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The particular submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff was that the application for grant of probate, namely, P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004 had not been assigned before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. J. Sengupta. It was also stated that only g. A. No. 3335 of 2004 had been assigned to the aforesaid Bench. It was also stated that another matter, viz. P. L. A. No. 241 of 2004 was not assigned to the learned Single Judge. It was also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant that upon P. L. A. No. 204 of 2004 being treated as contentious suit being Testamentary Suit No. 6 of 2004 the character of the proceedings had been changed. It was also stated that merely because some interlocutory applications had been disposed of by the same learned Single Judge does not mean that there has been lawful conferment of jurisdiction to deal with this matter. It was, therefore, submitted that the matter be placed before the hon'ble the Chief Justice for clarification.

(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Pal and Mr. Sarkar, learned Senior advocates opposed the submissions made by Mr. Mitra and Mr. Chatterjee. It was their submission that the matter has been entirely assigned to the hon'ble Mr. Justice K. J. Sengupta. It was submitted that since the aforesaid two applications for grant of probate have been assigned to Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. J. Sengupta, they had to be heard by the same Bench either in absence of any contest or with contest. Since the learned Single Judge had dealt with various applications including the application for discharge of caveats and application for appointment of Administrator pendente lite, the matter ought to be heard by the same Bench. It was submitted that had the entire matter not been assigned to Justice K. J. Sengupta, the aforesaid applications could not have been heard and decided. After noticing the aforesaid submissions, the learned Single Judge adjourned the matter for further consideration.

(3.) THE matter was again considered at length on 12th of September, 2008. The learned Single Judge took note of the various assignment orders that had been made at different stages either by the Acting Chief Justice or by the Chief Justice. On 30th of August, 2004 the matter was released by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee. It was also noticed that at that time when the matter had been released by Subhro Kamal mukherjee, J. , it was not possible for the learned Single Judge to release the application for grant of probate because the same did not and could not appear in the list for hearing and only the interlocutory application in connection therewith being G. A. No. 3335 of 2004 appeared in the list. On the matter being released, it was re-assigned to Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. J. Sengupta with the following endorsement: -"let the matter be now heard by Justice K. J. Sengupta. "