OD-5 to 8 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/123/2026 WITH TS/8/2018 BHAWAR LAL BHANDARI -Vs- HIRALAL BHANDARI AND APOT/124/2026 WITH TS/8/2018 BHAWAR LAL BHANDARI -Vs- HIRALAL BHANDARI AND APOT/125/2026 WITH TS/8/2018 BHAWAR LAL BHANDARI -Vs- HIRALAL BHANDARI AND APOT/126/2026 WITH TS/8/2018 IA No.GA/1/2026 BHAWAR LAL BHANDARI -Vs- HIRALAL BHANDARI BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK -AND- The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI Date: August 6, 2026. Appearance: Ms. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv. Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv. Ms. Debarati Das (Sen), Adv. Ms. Sohini Choudhury, Adv. ...for the appellant 2 Mr. Diptomoy Talukdar, Adv. Mr. Anish Chakraborty, Adv. ...for the respondent The Court : Supplementary affidavit filed in Court be taken on record. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated June 24, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in TS/8/2018. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge disposed of GA/14/2024 and GA/11/2020 while keeping GA/15/2026 for consideration. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant is the defendant no.1 in TS/8/2018. Plaintiff no.2 in the testamentary suit expired in December, 2023. Application for substitution of the plaintiff no.2 was filed by the plaintiff no.1. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, plaintiffs filed the proceeding for grant of probate in the capacity as executors. On the death of the plaintiff no.2, the office of the executors ceased as they were appointed as joint executors/trustees. She contends that, on the death of one of the joint executors, the surviving executor cannot act singularly in view of the wording in the Will. She further submits that, the death of the plaintiff no.2 may be recorded. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, GA/11/2020 is an application filed by the appellant for cancellation of the vakalatnama executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the advocate-on-record for the plaintiffs. She submits that, vakalatnama was purported to be 3 executed on the basis of a so called Power of Attorney. Vakalatnama is, therefore, invalid. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant filed an application being GA/15/2026 for appointment of an Administrator on the death of the plaintiff no. 2 as one of the executors. She submits that, on the death of the plaintiff no.2, it was imperative that an Administrator Pendente Lite be appointed to administer the estate of the deceased. She submits that, the plaintiffs dealt with the estate of the deceased in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the estate. The respondent is represented. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that GA/14/2024 was an application for recording the death of the deceased executor, i.e. the plaintiff no.2. Respondent did not seek substitution of the deceased executor with that of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased executor. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, GA/15/2026 is yet to be decided. By the impugned order, learned Trial Judge directed that the name of the plaintiff no.2 to be expunged, due to the death of the plaintiff no.2. Learned Trial Judge did not direct substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff no.2 sued in the capacity as an executor named in the Will of the deceased. On the death of the plaintiff no.2, appointment of the plaintiff no.2 as an executor of the Will of the deceased ceased. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned 4 order of the learned Trial Judge so far as the direction of expunging the name of the plaintiff no.2 from the proceeding is concerned. So far as GA/11/2020 is concerned, which is an application filed by the appellant to cancel or disregard the vakalatnama filed by the plaintiff in the Testamentary Suit no. 8 of 2018 is concerned, we are of the view that since the plaintiff no.2 expired, and in order to avoid further controversies, the subsisting plaintiff will execute a fresh vakalatnama in favour of his advocate-on-record within a fortnight from date. So far as GA/15/2026 is concerned, we find that the same is yet to be finally decided. The appellant is at liberty to raise all such questions and issues before the learned Single Judge as the appellant is entitled to in law with regard to the appointment of an Administrator Pendente Lite in the proceeding, including the point that by reason of the contents in the Will, the executor cannot act on his own. With the aforesaid observations, APOT/123/2026, APOT/124/2026, APOT/125/2026 and APOT/126/2026 with IA No.GA/1/2026 are disposed, of without any order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) (MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.) sp3