District: North 24 Parganas.
Before the Ld. Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Barasat.
Ref: T. Execution No. 07 / 2020
Arising out of T.S no. 87 of 2007
Chandrayee Halder and others
……………. Decree holder
Versus
Sakuntala Sharma and others
…………….. Judgement debotrs
Humble written objection on behalf of the Santosh
Sharma against the substituting the name of the one of
the decree holder / Gautam Mukherjee.
Most Respectfully Sheweth:
1. That the decree holder’s application for substituting the name of the one of
the decree holder / Gautam Mukherjee, hereinafter referred to as the
substitution application is not maintainable in law.
2. That the petitioner’s application is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and
acquiescence.
3. That the substation application has been filed without separate application for
condonation of delay in filing the application under objection , it be considered
that the Goutam Mukherjee died on 25.02.2022 and this substitution petition
has been filed on 07.10.2023 , which means after 22 months of death of said
Goutam Mukherjee , although during this period , the decree holder has filed
Hazira on the date fixed , so the orders have been passed during the period of
25.02.2022 to 07.10.2023 for or against the death person in this execution case.
2
4. That the substitution application has not been filed the legal heirs of deceased
Goutam Mukherjee , although their name have been sought for placed as
decree holders of this execution case by substituting the deceased decree
holder Goutam Mukherjee. In this aspect, the answering judgement debtor
begs to state , Prabahan Mukherjee and Biswajit Mukherjee , who are sons of
Gautam Mukherjee can not be placed as decree holder , as they are not the
applicant of this application.
5. That the statements made in paragraph no. 1 and 2 of the application are
matter of record and nothing is admitted which is beyond the record.
6. That the statements made in paragraph no. 3 of application are absolutely false,
baseless and denied. It is denied that the summon of the execution case
proceeding had duly been served upon the judgement debtors and they have
appeared before the Ld. Court and contesting the execution case. In this aspect,
the answering JDR begs to state that the Decree holder has filed a separate
application for amendment of execution case for incorporating the name and
address of the JDR , which is pending for disposal. No summon was served upon
the JDR of this execution case , who were the defendant of T.S no. 87 of 2007.
7. With regards to the statements made in paragraph no. 4 of the application
under reply , the contesting JDR begs to state that instant application under
reply has been filed after 22th months from the date of death of deceased
Gautam Mukherjee , but no separate application has been filed for condonation
of delay.
8. That the statements made in paragraph no. 5 of the application are absolutely
false, as because during the period of 25.02.2022 (date of death) to 07.10.2023
(filing date of application) , the Hazira had filed for all decree holder, if it was
3
the knowledge of the LD. Advocate that said Gautam Mukherjee died , then LD.
Advocate would not file Hazira for the deceased.
9. That the answering judgement debtor begs to state that the persons whose
name have been sought for pleased as decree holder by substituting the name
of the deceased decree holder , who are the applicant of the application under
reply.
Under the aforesaid premises instant application should
be rejected with exemplary cost.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Shantosh Sharma , son of Late Gopal Sharma , aged about years, by faith- Hindu,
residing at, 369/10 “Chitranjan Residentail Complex”, Ground floor , P.S Lake Town ,
Kolkata- 700048, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :
1. That I am of the Judgement debtor in this case and am well aware of the facts
and circumstances of this case.
2. That the statements made above are true to my knowledge and rest is my
prayer before the Ld. Court.
Deponent
Identified by me
Advocate
4
