In a packed courtroom on Thursday, Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury of the Calcutta High Court refused an application filed by members of the Dey family seeking substitution and amendment in a decades-old partition suit. The ruling marks yet another chapter in a legal tussle that has been dragging since 1988, involving multiple decrees, appeals, and execution proceedings.
Background
The case has its roots in a family dispute over properties inherited from Late Rasik Lal Dey. Two branches of the family have been at loggerheads for nearly four decades. A preliminary decree in 2002 divided certain properties, and a partition commissioner was appointed. More properties were added in 2003, and a final decree followed in August 2005.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Woman's Bid to Stall Eviction, Says Petition Filed on Husband’s Behalf Cannot Stand
That decree, however, did not settle matters fully. Appeals, fresh challenges, and even execution proceedings ensued, with portions of the decree kept in abeyance at various stages. The plaintiffs argued that some residuary properties remained outside the scope of the final decree and that their rights were still alive.
Court’s Observations
During Thursday’s hearing, the petitioners sought condonation of delay, recording of deaths of some parties, amendment of the plaint, and leave to re-verify it. They also urged that execution proceedings had wrongly proceeded despite the final decree being kept in abeyance earlier.
Counsel for the defendants opposed this strongly, maintaining that the suit stood concluded long ago. He reminded the court of a series of past orders, including one in 2016 where the execution petition was dismissed after recording satisfaction of the decree.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Stays Proceedings Against Actor Rajkummar Rao in Lord Shiva Depiction FIR Case
Justice Chowdhury took note of this history. “Without necessary application, it cannot be held that the suit still survives,” he remarked, pointing out that the liberty earlier granted by the Division Bench to lead evidence had never been exercised by the plaintiffs.
The judge also addressed the broader question—whether more than one final decree can exist in a partition suit. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, he acknowledged that multiple final decrees are possible in such matters to cover all properties. Yet, he stressed that no pending application was before the court to justify reopening the settled decree.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Stays Proceedings Against Actor Rajkummar Rao in Lord Shiva Depiction FIR Case
Decision
Concluding the matter, Justice Chowdhury dismissed the substitution plea (GA 29/2025). He made it clear that no dispute was presently pending for adjudication and hence there was “no scope to entertain any application for substitution.” Importantly, the judge clarified that he had not gone into the merits of the parties’ rights, leaving the door ajar for appropriate remedies elsewhere.
Case: Sri Susanta Dey & Ors. vs. Sri Nandalal Dey & Ors.
Case Number: CS/911/1988 (IA No. GA/29/2025)
Date of Order: 4 September 2025
