Authority: High Court at Calcutta
Order Date: 04.08.2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant – Nupur Kejriwal; Respondents – Sunflower Synergies Private Limited and others.
- Applications: GA/1/2026 (condonation of 186‑day delay) and GA/2/2026 (stay of impugned order).
- Impugned order dated 19 December 2025 substituted the deceased defendant No. 2 with the appellant as heir and legal representative.
- Appellant contended no notice of substitution was served, she is the married daughter of the deceased, and a partner cannot be added as a defendant in a partnership suit.
- Reliance was placed on Order XXX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and SC judgment (2024 SCC Online SC 504).
- Appellant had relinquished her share in the partnership; reconstitution of the partnership had not occurred.
- No opportunity of hearing was afforded before the substitution order was passed.
Observations & Reasoning
- The court accepted the explanation for the 186‑day delay and granted condonation.
- It noted the procedural defect of passing the substitution order without hearing the appellant.
- The court held that the appellant, as an heir, should be given a hearing before any decision on substitution.
Final Outcome
- The impugned order dated 19 December 2025 is set aside.
- The application for substitution is remanded to the learned Trial Judge for hearing and decision.
- All substituted defendants have been served with the writ of summons; the appellant is already served.
- The appellant must file an affidavit‑in‑opposition to the substitution application within four weeks from the order date, and any reply must be filed within one week thereafter.
- The Single Judge is directed to hear and decide the substitution application as expeditiously as possible.
- APOT/131/2026 and connected applications are disposed of.
Topics: Civil Procedure, Substitution of Parties