Failure to invite objections under Order XXII Rule 10 is harmless absent substantial prejudice.

The respondent-plaintiff deity, Sree Sree Radha Gobinda Jew, was represented in the suit by Hirak Kumar Mitra, who subsequently died.

Chandan Kumar Mitra applied under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), claiming to be a shebait and seeking permission to continue prosecuting the suit on behalf of the deity.

The Trial Court allowed the application by Order No. 44 dated 25 June 2026.

The appellant, the original defendant, challenged that order in F.M.A.T. No. 339 of 2026 and also sought recall of the order. The recall application was rejected by Order No. 46 dated 31 July 2026, giving rise to F.M.A.T. No. 340 of 2026.

The appellant contended that he had an interest in the suit property because his father, Shovon Lal Chowdhury, had allegedly been admitted as a sub-tenant; that he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to object to the Order XXII Rule 10 application; and that Chandan Kumar Mitra was not the only shebait.

He further alleged that other shebaits, including female heirs of the settlor, had not been impleaded, rendering the suit defective for non-joinder.

Whether the Trial Court’s allowance of the application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC without granting the appellant an opportunity to file written objections violated the principles of natural justice and vitiated the order?

Whether the appellant’s objections regarding Chandan Kumar Mitra’s status as shebait and the alleged non-joinder of other shebaits, including female heirs of the settlor, justified interference with the Order XXII Rule 10 order?

Whether the consequential order rejecting the recall application and the connected application under Section 151 CPC required interference?

The Court applied Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which permits continuation of a suit by or against a person upon whom an interest in the subject matter has devolved during the pendency of the suit.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the general requirement of granting an affected party an opportunity of hearing, but held that absence of such opportunity is not independently fatal where no substantial prejudice is caused and the proposed objection could not have altered the result.

Questions concerning the ultimate right, title, or status of a person claiming to be a shebait are not conclusively adjudicated in an interlocutory Order XXII Rule 10 proceeding.

Objections concerning non-joinder or the merits of the parties’ rights may be raised in the suit itself, subject to procedural requirements and determination at final hearing.

The Court accepted that the appellant could claim an interest in the property and that, as the original defendant, he would ordinarily have a right to contest the application.

However, it held that the appellant had not demonstrated any substantial prejudice from the absence of an opportunity to file written objections.

The objections proposed by him—namely, denial of Chandan Kumar Mitra’s shebaitship and alleged non-joinder of other shebaits—could not have changed the result of the interlocutory application.

The non-joinder objection was available from the inception of the suit and remained open for consideration at the final hearing, subject to the filing of a written statement and framing of an appropriate issue.

Further, the plaint itself stated that the arpannama restricted shebaitship to male descendants, and the application was based on that assertion.

Since Chandan Kumar Mitra claimed to be a shebait following the death of Hirak Kumar Mitra, and no competing person had come forward with a similar claim, the Trial Court was justified in allowing him to represent the deity so that the suit could proceed effectively.

The order did not finally determine Chandan Kumar Mitra’s title or status as shebait.

The alleged denial of an opportunity to object caused no substantial prejudice, and the appellant’s objections remained open for consideration in the suit, where appropriate.

Accordingly, F.M.A.T. No. 339 of 2026 was dismissed on contest, affirming Order No. 44 dated 25 June 2026.

F.M.A.T. No. 340 of 2026 was also dismissed, affirming the order rejecting the recall application, and the connected application under Section 151 CPC was dismissed to the relevant extent.

There was no order as to costs.