D/L- 37 19/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2783 of 2026 Tech Mahindra Limited Vs. Arvind Parasramka & Ors. Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soumalya Ganguly Mr. Aurin Chakrabarty ….for the petitioner Mr. Krishna Raj Thaker, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee Mr. Steven S. Biswas ….for the opposite party no.1 This application under Article 227 of Constitution of India is at the instance of the 5th defendant in a suit for defamation and for other consequential reliefs. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected and the right of the petitioner to file the written statement was closed. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after being served with the summons of the suit, the petitioner entered appearance in the suit on November 6, 2025 and on that very date filed the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for striking out the name of the defendant no.5 from the array of parties in the said suit. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on technical ground that the same was filed without proof of authorisation and also that the petitioner 2 entered appearance in the suit without a valid authorisation. In support of his contention that the defendant no.5 entered appearance in the suit by filing the photocopy of the Power of Attorney along with Vakalatnama, Mr. Banerjee produced a copy of the information slip supplied by the Office of the learned trial judge on August 11, 2026. Mr. Banerjee submits that the impugned order was passed by the learned trial judge without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. Mr. Thaker, learned senior advocate representing the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 submits that the right to file the written statement of the defendant no.5 stood closed on the ground that the written statement was not filed within the time limit fixed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that the learned trial judge after considering the materials on record rejected the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the same was filed by a person without any valid authorisation. Mr. Thaker further submits that the petitioner did not file any written objection to the injunction application and the learned trial judge by the order impugned also closed the right of the petitioner to file the written objection to the injunction application. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. Record reveals that November 6, 2025 was fixed for service returns, acknowledgment due and for filing the 3 postal receipt. On that date the defendant no.5/petitioner herein entered appearance in the said suit by filing a Vakalatnama and also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After going through the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure this Court finds that in the said application the petitioner prayed for an order for striking out/deleting/expunging the name of the defendant no.5 from the array of parties in the said suit. Thus, though the application was captioned as “one” under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the same is in effect an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It further appears from the said application that the petitioner also sought for an order of stay of all further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the said application including filing of the written statement by the defendant no.5. The case made out by the defendant no.5 in the said application is that the dispute involved in the suit emanates out of inter-se disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.5 was unnecessarily arrayed as a party defendant in the said suit without there being any relationship between the defendant no.5 and the plaintiff. It was further stated in the said application that it is the case made out in the plaint that the Directors of the defendant no.5-company are only the recipients of the purported defamatory communication. It was stated in the said application that 4 merely being a recipient of the purported defamatory communication it does not make the defendant no.5 either a necessary or a proper party in the said suit. After going through the order impugned, this Court finds that the said application was not heard and decided on merits but the same was rejected on technical ground that no Board Resolution/Letter of Authority/Power of Attorney was found annexed to the Vakalatnama or filed on record in support of the Vakalatnama and in absence of proof of authorisation the appearance entered on behalf of the defendant no.5 cannot be looked into. Thus, the learned trial judge was of the view that without any Board Resolution/Letter of Authority/Power of Attorney the appearance of the defendant no.5 is an unauthorised one. The copy of the information slip filed by the learned senior advocate for the petitioner is taken on record. A copy of the same has been supplied to Mr. Thaker, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1 in course of hearing of this civil revisional application. It appears from the endorsement made in the Remarks Column of the said information slip that in Title Suit No.1312 of 2025, the defendant nos.5, 6 and 7 filed photocopy of the Power of Attorney along with the Vakalatnama separately. Mr. Thaker, learned senior advocate submits that since an information slip supplied by the Office of the learned trial judge has been produced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, he is not disputing the 5 correctness of the fact recorded in the said information slip. The reasons for rejecting the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that application was filed pursuant to unauthorised appearance and hence not maintainable. In view of the information supplied by the Office of the learned trial judge that the Power of Attorney was filed along with the Vakalatnama separately, this Court is of the considered view that the portion of the order passed by the learned trial judge rejecting the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure suffers from infirmity as the learned trial judge failed to take note of the Power of Attorney filed along with the vakalatnama. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial judge could have closed the right of the defendant to file the written statement by the impugned order. As recorded hereinbefore that the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on the date when the defendant no.5 entered appearance in the said suit. The said application also contained a prayer for stay of all further proceedings of the suit as well as for filing of the written statement. The learned trial judge on one hand held that the appearance of the defendant no.5 in an unauthorised one on the ground that the same was not backed by proper authorisation but at the same breath closed the right of the defendant no.5 to file the written statement. 6 That apart, the question of filing written statement by the 5th defendant would not arise if the prayer of such defendant to strike out his name from the array of parties in the suit is allowed. When an application for striking out the name of the 5th defendant has been filed on the date of appearance with a prayer for stay of all further proceedings including filing of written statement, such application ought to have been decided on merits prior to closing the right of such defendant to file written statement. For such reason, this Court is inclined to interfere with the portion of the impugned order closing the right of the defendant no.5 to file the written statement. The impugned order closing the right of the 5th defendant to file written statement and written objection to the injunction application is set aside. The application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated November 6, 2025 filed by the defendant no.5 stands restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 1st Court at Alipore. At this stage, Mr. Thaker, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 prays for a week’s time to file the written objection to the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no.5. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the defendant no.5 shall also given a liberty to file the written objection to the injunction 7 application within the time limit as may be fixed by this Court. The opposite party no.1 is granted liberty to file a written objection to the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated November 6, 2025 filed by the defendant no.5 on or before August 29, 2026. The petitioner will be at liberty to file the written objection against the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on or before August 29, 2026. Reply thereto, if any, be filed by the respective parties on or before September 7, 2026 as the business of the Court shall permit. The learned trial judge shall be authorised to refuse any prayer for extension of time to file the written objections. Considering the fact that the hearing of the application for injunction is fixed tomorrow (i.e. August 20, 2026) and this Court has permitted the petitioner to file the written objection on or before August 29, 2026, this Court requests the learned trial judge to fix a date of hearing of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated November 6, 2025 filed by the defendant no.5 and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein after September 7, 2026. 8 With the above observations and directions, CO 2783 of 2026 stands disposed of. It is made clear that this order shall enure to the benefit of the 5th defendant only. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)