ORDER SHEET OD-5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/7/2026 WITH CS/41/1989 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 MISS BANASREE NEOGY VS MRS. SOMA GHOSH AND ORS. BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA -AND- THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date:8th July, 2026. APPEARANCE: Ms.BanasreeNeogy (in person) ...for the appellant Mr. Meghnad Dutta, Adv.(VC) Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv. Mr. S. P. Ghose, Adv. ...for the respondent nos.2(a) to 2(d) Mr. Deb Kumar Chandra, Adv. …for the defendant nos. 4(i) & 4(ii) The Court: 1. Heard the appellant, appearing in person with leave of Court, as well as learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondent no.2-series. 2. Upon going through the pleadings in the condonation application, we find sufficient reason to have been furnished for the delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Accordingly, GA/1/2026 is allowed, thereby condoning the delay in preferring APOT/7/2026. 2 4. The petitioner, with the leave of Court, appears in person to represent her case. It is submitted by the petitioner that vide impugned order dated November 28, 2025, the learned Single Judge acted de hors jurisdiction in directing the matter to be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to engage a lawyer on behalf of the plaintiff no.1/ present appellant, “to advise her and also assist the Court about her case”. 5. The petitioner submits that by a previous order dated May 11, 2015 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was observed that the appellant may appear in person. It is contended that in view of the said order, which has a binding effect on subsequent Benches, the petitioner cannot be forced or compelled to take the assistance of a lawyer in representing her before a Court of Law. 6. The petitioner further submits that she is better apprised than others of the facts of the case as well as posted with the knowledge of the documents which are germane for the adjudication of the suit from which the present appeal arises. 7. As such, the petitioner intends to continue with the litigation by representing herself before the suit court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, who are co-plaintiffs with the present petitioner in view of a prior transposition order passed by the suit court, argues that the petitioner transgressed the boundaries of decorum while appearing before the suit court. It is insinuated by learned counsel that the petitioner, at every stage, particularly before the learned Judge who passed the impugned order, made adverse remarks unbefitting of 3 the conduct of a person before a Court of Law. It is submitted that the Court has a sanctity of its own and it cannot be permitted to be undermined merely becausea person seeks to have the fancy to argue his or her case by herself. 9. Learned counsel also submits that, like other High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court should seriously consider the framing certain rules as to the parameters of permitting persons to appear to contest or argue their own cases. 10. Upon hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it was entirely for the Court concerned to come to its opinion as to whether it would further hear the matter and/or take any further steps against the present appellant, if it was found that the appellant had failed to properly represent herself and/or cross the boundaries of decorum. 11. However, with respect, one cannot be forced to take the assistance of a lawyer in the event she/he does not intend to do so. Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure categorically permits any person, either through himself/herself or through a recognized agent, to appear in a Court of Law or to act in connection with a litigation. Such right cannot be curtailed by forcing an advocate on a litigant who does not want to take the assistance of such advocate. 12. However, we hasten to add that there are several recourses open to the Court in the event the Court is of the opinion that the litigant appearing in person is unbecoming of a person who can represent herself in Court, either not being trained in the law or not being able to represent the facts of the case and/or crossing the boundaries of 4 decorum. Such recourses include issuing a rule of contempt, releasing a matter and/or appointing counsel or someone else as amicus curiae to assist the Court. 13. However, in our opinion, if the Court would be travelling beyond its jurisdiction if it thrusts an advocate on a litigant who does not want to take the assistance of such advocate in pursuing their own case. 14. In such view of the matter, APOT/7/2026 is partially allowed, thereby modifying the impugned order dated November 11, 2025 passed in CS/41/1989 to the limited extent that we make it clear that the said order shall not compel the plaintiff no. 1/present appellant to mandatorily engage an advocate, either to advise her or to assist her in Court and/or to represent her in Court. In other words, the appellant shall be at liberty to represent herself in the litigation. 15. However, the above liberty shall come with the rider that it will be open to the concerned Court, where the appellant represents herself, to take a call as to whether the appellant is sufficiently capable of representing herself, either on facts or on law. In the event the Court is of the opinion that the appellant is not capable of doing so, it will be open to the Court to take whatever action in accordance with law as the Court deems fit, including directing an amicus curiae to assist the Court in hearing the matter and deciding the same and/or releasing the matter and/or in the event, in the opinion of the Court, the appellant has committed a misconduct or a contempt of Court, to take steps accordingly. 5 16. However, we request the appellant to ensure that she represents herself in a manner befitting the decorum of the Court and does not make any unwarranted, unnecessary or extraneous comments either about the Judges and/or the learned advocates. We say so because in the order dated May 11, 2015, the coordinate Bench had merely recorded that on the basis of the assurance and undertaking given by the appellant, she was given an opportunity to represent herself before the Court of Law, at the same time recording that she will be capable of effectively representing herself; thus, such order does not also preclude the Court from recourses indicated above if it so deems fit. 17. With the aforesaid observations, GA/2/2026 is also disposed of. 18. No order as to costs. (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) S. A./S.Bag ARs (CR)