1 OD-1,2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APDT/6/2025 WITH CS/111/2019 IA NO:GA/1/2025, GA/2/2026 ANIL RAJKUMAR MUKERJI AND ORS. VS RT REV PARITOSH CANNING AND ORS. WITH APDT/7/2025 IA NO:GA/1/2025, GA/2/2026 ASSOCIATION OF LA MARTINIERE ALUMNI VS RT. REV.PARITOSHCANNING AND ORS. BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ANUJ SINGH Date: 15 thSeptember, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ishan Saha, Adv.; Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Awasthi, Adv. ...For Appellant. Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Adv. Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Adv. ...For Proposed Appellant. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.(VC) Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv.(VC) Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Adv.(VC) Mr. B. P. Tiwari, Adv. (VC) ...For Defendant Nos.1&7 2 Mr. Suman Kr. Dutt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhya Adv. Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv. Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Subhradipo Bhattacharyya, Adv. ...For The Respondent/Defendant No.2 Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.(VC) Mr. Deep Basak, Adv. ...For The Defendant/Respondent No.6 Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Rishika Goyal, Adv. ... For The Defendant/Respondent No.8 GA/1/2025 APDT/7/2025 1. The Court :This application for leave to prefer an appeal being GA/1/2025 in APDT/7/2025 is considered. 2. This Court is of the view that the Alumni Association has a right to be represented in the affairs of the School. In terms of orders passed by this Court earlier an ex student was to be part of the Board of Governors and/or the Board of Additional Governors. 3. The Alumni Association is allowed to prefer this appeal. GA/1/2025 is allowed and disposed of. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the Alumni Association being the appellant in APDT 7 of 2025 shall also be added as a party respondent to the proceeding before the Single Bench. 3 APDT 6 & 7 of 2025 5. The brief facts relevant to the case are that an Equity Suit No. 26, was filed sometime in the first decade of 1800s seeking directions of this Court as regards the constitution of the Board of Governors and the establishment and purpose of La Martiniere School at Calcutta. The suit was inter alia to give effect to the last will and testament dated 11th June, 1800 of one Claude Martin, a French mercenary working in the British Army, in India. 6. The suit was decreed on 22nd October 1832 by the predecessor of this Court called the “Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal”. It provided for establishment of the three La Martiniere schools at Lyon in France, Lucknow and at Calcutta. Four persons in their official capacity were to nominate a committee of governors to establish and run the schools. 7. In the will in question dated 11th June, 1800 and the decree of 1832. It was specified that while the school was established to impart quality education to the children in the city of Calcutta, special emphasis was laid on educating and ensuring due employment for about 50 boys and girls of the Christian faith. The said will as well as the decree dated 22nd October 1832, however indicate that the testator was a secular person. The 4 Equity Suit probably came to be re-numbered thereafter as Equity Suit No 26 of 1888. 8. On an application made ex parte by the Advocate General of West Bengal the original decree dated 22nd October 1832 was modified on June 22, 1944, prescribing 12 persons as ex officio governors to nominate a committee of 4 Governors to run the School in Calcutta. All such governors and ex-officio governors were required to profess the Christian faith. Non-Christians could not Act as Governors. This appears prima facie to be contrary to the aforesaid Will of Claude Martin. 9. Thereafter a suit under section 92 of the CPC being Suit No.2602 of 1967 was filed in the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court, by parents, guardians and some interested persons seeking intervention of this Court on allegations of omission, commission and mismanagement at the school at Kolkata. The trigger for the suit was the appointment of one, Mr. Simon in the place and stead of one Mr. John Vyse, as principal of the School. 10. A Single Bench at an interlocutory stage of the suit dismissed the application vide order dated 1st February 1968. Several other observations were made in the said order that were also prima facie not in harmony with the aforesaid last Will and testament of late Claude Martin. The suit is shown as struck off the records of this Court. 5 11. The constitution of the school was based on the order dated February 1, 1968 (supra). 12. Sometime in 1996, an application being GA/898 of 1996 was filed in the Equity Suit No.26 of 1888 treating the said application as one in the Originating Summons Suit. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated July 12, 1996 was pleased to reconstitute the board of ex officio governors and committee of governors. The single bench found that restricting the posts to Christians only would be improper in changed times. At least 90% of the school children were non-Christians. The said order was, however, interfered with and set aside by order dated March 1, 2000, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in APOT/305/1996. By a judgment and order of the said date, the order of the Single Bench dated July 12, 1996 was set aside. 13. The appellants herein are four persons who were once nominated Governors to run and manage the school for a period of one year. Their term has expired. Some of the said four persons are ex students of the school. They had filed the instant suit No. 111 of 2019, with leave under Section 92 and Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Several allegations of mismanagement of the school have been pleaded. It was averred that the school was being run by only one or two persons. The termination of the 4 plaintiffs as the committee of governors was challenged. This 6 particular challenge may have become infructuous. The other allegations of mismanagement remained for adjudication. 14. There were several applications being GA 1 to GA 11 pending before the Single Bench. The applications by the appellants were for injunction against any major policy decisions to be taken in the school and to restrain the respondents to give effect to some resolutions. Interim Orders were passed in some applications to ensure the basic functioning of the school. The interim orders have been carried in appeal and to the Supreme Court. The defendants only sought revocation of leave granted to the appellants to file the suit and questioned the locus of the plaintiffs/appellants. 15. This court having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, yesterday had indicated that the maintainability issue of the suit could be set to rest, if the plaint in the CS No.111 of 2019 and G.A.8 of 2025, before the single bench could be treated as and converted to applications under the Old Equity Suit No.26 of 1888. Mr. Jishnu Saha, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellants had readily agreed to it yesterday itself. Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Ld. Advocate on record for the defendants/respondents, has on instructions of his clients, communicated today, his clients’ consent to the said treating and conversion of G.A.8 of 2025, as an application under Equity Suit No.26 of 1888. 7 16. This Court is prima facie of the view that mismanagement of any institution can occur even if an earlier mismanagement has been cured by orders of court or the parties themselves. 17. Looking at the matter from that point of view, it could not be held that the subject suit under section 92 of the CPC being CS/111/2019 was not maintainable in view of the pendency of an earlier suit. Admittedly, the Single Bench committed an error in holding that CS No.2602 of 1967 was still pending before this Court. The records of this Court indicate that the same has been struck off and hence disposed of. 18. The Registry could not trace out the plaint in the original Equity Suit No.26 of 1888 or the report of the Master in which the original directions of 1832 were passed. However, there are several orders and decrees referred to hereinabove that give a clear picture as regards the scope of the Equity Suit No. 26 of 1888. 19. Entertaining of the GA.898 of 1996 in Equity Suit No.26 of 1888, itself lends credence to the fact that the proceeding is still alive and pending before this Court. 20. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion this Court is inclined to convert and treat the plaint in Civil Suit No.111 of 2019 into an application under the aforesaid Equity Suit NO.26 of 1888.Consequently, GA/8/2023 filed in the aforesaid 8 CS/111/2019 shall be treated as an application in the aforesaid Equity Suit No.26 of 1888. All parties before this Court namely, the appellants, the respondents and the added respondent have consented to the aforesaid conversion. 21. What is now therefore to be looked at is the merits of the claims made both in the plaint as well as GA/8/2023. There is definitely urgency as expressed by counsel for the appellants. Several allegations of omission and commission and mismanagement have been indicated to Court. The primary allegation made are in respect of the management of the school is that it is being run by only one or two persons. A prayer has been made for framing of a scheme for the management of the school. Any decision by this Court on the merits of claims of the Appellants would deprive the parties of a forum. 22. This Court, based on the earlier orders and decrees referred to hereinabove finds that there ought to be several ex officio members as Governors and nomination of at least four persons to run and manage the school. There is also a principal and treasurer who are required to be appointed. The Single Bench did not have occasion to go into the merits of the suit, as it was not satisfied with the maintainability of the present suit, for pendency of CS No. 2602 of 1967. 23. The impugned judgement and order dated 27th February 2025 is 9 therefore set aside. All applications questioning the maintainability of the CS.111 of 2019 inter alia being GA Nos. 2,5,9,10 & 11 shall remain dismissed. All applications filed by the parties for interim relief and for framing of a scheme to manage the La Martiniere Schools at Kolkata are restored to the file of the Single Bench and shall be deemed to be pending. 24. The matter is therefore remanded back for consideration of the application being GA/8/2023 and other applications filed by the plaintiffs, in which affidavits are stated to be complete. The application for addition of parties made by the alumni association being GA/2/2026 shall be treated as affidavit in opposition to GA/8/2023. 25. The Registry at its discretion shall be entitled to re-number CS No.111 of 2019 and GA/8/2025 treating them and other applications as applications under the Old Equity Suit no.26 of 1888. 26. The Single Bench of this Court is requested to consider ad interim directions and other reliefs as may be sought at the earliest available opportunity subject to its business permitting. 27. This Court clarifies all observations of this Court on the merits of the suit and applications, other than those on the issue of maintainability of CS 111 of 2019 including under section 92 and Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, shall be treated as tentative by 10 the Single Bench. The application shall be decided independently by the Single Bench uninfluenced by any observation made on merits, not being those in respect of maintainability of the suit. 28. With the aforesaid observations, the APDT 6 of 2025 and APDT 7 of 2025 stand disposed of. The interim order already passed on June 22, 2026 shall continue and abide by any decision that the Single Bench may take, either interim or otherwise. (RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.) (ANUJ SINGH, J.)