SMT. BINA DEBI BAGARIA AND ORS AJAY KUMAR BAGARIA (IN PERSON) vs RUCHIR BAGARIA AND ORS — APOT/69/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCO0014352026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

APOT/70/2026

Filing Date

20-04-2026

Registration No

APOT/69/2026

Registration Date

20-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

Bench Type

Division Bench

Judicial Branch

APPEAL SECTION

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N

Petitioner(s)

SMT. BINA DEBI BAGARIA AND ORS AJAY KUMAR BAGARIA (IN PERSON)

Respondent(s)

RUCHIR BAGARIA AND ORS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

28-04-2026

NEW APPLICATIONS

06-05-2026

NEW APPLICATIONS

05-05-2026

NEW APPLICATIONS

04-05-2026

NEW APPLICATIONS

30-04-2026

NEW APPLICATIONS

Orders

06-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed both appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) on grounds of improper maintainability. The court held that appellant no.4 (Ajay Kumar Bagaria), a non-advocate, was not entitled to represent the other three appellants solely on the basis of a power of attorney without seeking prior court permission. The court also upheld the trial judge's orders dismissing applications for appointing a special officer (due to pending parallel writ proceedings) and denying addition of unnecessary parties to the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed both appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) on grounds of improper maintainability. The court held that appellant no.4 (Ajay Kumar Bagaria), a non-advocate, was not entitled to represent the other three appellants solely on the basis of a power of attorney without seeking prior court permission. The court also upheld the trial judge's orders dismissing applications for appointing a special officer (due to pending parallel writ proceedings) and denying addition of unnecessary parties to the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case