Shri.Subal Roy v. Smti. Amiyo Roy And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** RVW/6/2026 IA NO: CAN/1/2026 IA NO: CAN/2/2026 Shri Subal Roy Vs Smti. Amiyo Roy & Others Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the Petitioner Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the respondent no.3 Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent no.4 Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent no.5 April 27, 2026 [SR] Item No.4 1.

At the outset, an objection is raised on behalf of the respondents as to the impleadment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are learned Advocates who had represented the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the original proceeding, from which the review application arises.

2.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner seeks to level reckless and serious allegations against such learned Advocates merely due to them having appeared for the respondent nos. 1 and

2. However, whatever may be the nature of the allegation, learned Advocates are creatures of instructions by their clients and are not necessary or even proper parties in a review application, in a lis between the litigants.

3.

Merely because the said learned Advocates represented one of the sides in the original litigation, the petitioner is not entitled to implead them as parties in the review application by levelling baseless allegations of connivance with their clients, particularly since there is no scope of any relief being sought against them. Such practice is strongly deprecated. The learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioner is directed to delete the names of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the cause title of the present review application during the course of the day. The said respondents are hereby expunged from the review application.

4.

I do not find any corroboration of any incriminating material from the other parts of the pleadings or from the documents filed before this Court as against the said learned Advocates. Such reckless allegations amount to attempts at brow-beating learned counsel who represent their clients in Courts of law, which tantamounts to interfering with the process of delivery of justice.

5.

In view of such conduct of the petitioner of impleading learned Advocates as parties in a review application between litigants by levelling grave and reckless allegations against them without disclosing any basis therefor, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the deleted respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within a week from date.

6.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the review applicant seeks to withdraw the matter and file afresh by

expunging/deleting all the allegations levelled against the concerned Advocates.

7.

Accordingly, RVW/6/2026 along with CAN/1/2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the review applicant to file afresh on the self-same cause of action, by omitting all allegations made against learned counsel who appeared for the parties at any point of time. 8.

Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties subject to compliance of all formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)