240 of 1990 ought to have been tried together and the suit for specific performance filed by respondent 11 companyld number have been decreed by companysent without determining the legal title to and factum of possession of the suit property and that the title and possession companyld number have been decided without impleading appellant 1 as a party to the suit.
This Court, while setting aside the decree for specific performance as well as the order appointing the Receiver, directed the Receiver to deliver back the possession of the property to appellant 1.
In the said suit respondent 11 filed applications for injunction as well as for appointment of receiver which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated April 1, 1991.
Ltd. on the view that Extraordinary Suit No.
Ltd. v. Tarai Tea Company Pvt.
On the basis of the said order the Receiver on August 3, 1991 obtained symbolic possession of the Dharanipur Tea Estate and posted Mr Rungta as the authorised representative for respondent 11 to run, manage and look after the affairs of the said tea estate and the appellants were dispossessed from the said tea gardens The said order of the High Court dated August 2, 1991 was set aside by this Court by order dated September 9, 1991 in C.A. No.
While the said suit was pending, respondent 11 filed a suit Suit No.
While both the suits would be heard analogously and or together, Terai Tea Co. Pvt.
240 of 1990 and where Terai Tea Co. Pvt.
1 of 1985.
Ltd., appellant 1 owns the Red Bank Tea Estate and Surendra Nagar Tea Co. Pvt.
Respondent 11 filed appeals against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the said appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court by a companysent order dated August 2, 1991 wherein it was recorded that the respondents defendants in Suit No.
Ltd., respondent 7 herein, in favour of respondent 11 for the sale of the Dharanipur Tea Estate.
The said suit was subsequently transferred to the High Court on November 27, 1984 under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and it was renumbered as Extraordinary Suit No.
Ltd. has already filed an independent title suit and disclosed all its claims in its plaint.
The application was rejected by the learned Single Judge by order dated July 5, 1993.
The said lease was for a term of thirty years companymencing from October 27, 1964.
1 of 1985, and when there is numberconflict of interest between the plaintiff in Extraordinary Suit No.
240 of 1990 filed by respondent 11 relates to specific performance of the agreement relating to the sale by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and respondent 7 of Dharanipur Tea Estate.Ltd. stands for success only when the plaintiff in Extraordinary Suit No.
The said application of respondent 11 was opposed by the defendants in the said suit but the plaintiffs had numberobjection to the said application being allowed.
While the said suit is being heard along with Extraordinary Suit No.
In May 1984, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and respondent No.
1 of 1985.
3 filed a suit Title Suit No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
1 of 1985.
By the said order a receiver was appointed over the Dharanipur Tea Estate who was empowered to take possession of Dharanipur Tea Estate and allow respondent 11 to run the said tea estate until the Deed of Conveyance was executed and the Registering Authority was directed to register the Deed of Conveyance without insisting upon production of numberobjection certificate under Section 269 UC and a certificate under Section 230 A 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the police authorities and other appropriate administrative authorities were directed to afford all facilities, companyperation and help for the purpose of carrying out of the said order.
Thereafter respondent 11 filed a written application on April 1, 1993 for being added as a defendant in Extraordinary Suit No.
Ltd. is number necessary for effectual and companyplete adjudication of the matter in dispute.
3569 of 1991, New Red Bank Pvt.
Ltd., appellant 2 herein, owns the Surendra Nagar Tea Estate.
Ltd. as a defendant again in Extraordinary Suit No.
The present appeal is directed against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The application for being impleaded as a defendant was moved by respondent 11 under Order 1, Rule 10 2 CPC which provides as under The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and companypletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is Dharanipur Tea Estate situate in District Jalpaiguri in West Bengal.
1 of 1985 pending in the Calcutta High Court.
Nil of 1993 On March 16, 1977, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick granted a sub lease for the Dharanipur Tea Estate in favour of appellant 1.
On May 14, 1981, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and respondent 3 sold their companytrolling shares in appellants 1 and 2 to Robin Paul, appellant 3, and his group for valuable companysideration and the charge of the three tea estates was handed over to appellant 3 and his group.
The said provision empowers the companyrt to implead as a party to a suit a person i who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or ii whose presence before the companyrt may be necessary in order to enable the companyrt to effectually and companypletely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
240 of 1990 had agreed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of plaintiff appellants respondent 11 herein .
1 of 1985 and the plaintiff in Suit No.
1 of 1985 will succeed, there is numberscope for impleading Terai Tea Co. Pvt.
1 of 1985 as well as Suit No.
240 of 1990 in the High Court for specific performance of an agreement dated January 15, 1990 said to be executed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and M s Dharanipur Tea Industries Pvt.
Thereafter appellant 1 was impleaded as a defendant in Suit No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, respondent II filed an appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated September 22, 1993 on the view that the learned Single Judge was number right in holding that the presence of respondent 11 was number necessary for effectual and companyplete adjudication of the matter in dispute.
The New Red Bank Tea Co. Pvt.
Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and his wife, Smt Reba Bhowmick, respondent 3 herein, were having companytrolling block of shares in both these companypanies.
The learned Single Judge was of the view Upon perusal of the materials on record and on appreciation of the point of law, and the ratio of the reported decisions cited from the Bar, this Court finds that M s Terai Tea Co. Pvt.
Their application has been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that presence of respondent 11 is necessary for effectual and companyplete adjudication of the matter in dispute.
The said oral prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge by order dated March 22, 1993 on the view that it would be proper if a formal application was filed giving opportunity to all the parties to put forward their objections in specific terms.
From the Judgment and Order dated September 22, 1993 of the Division Bench, Calcutta in A. No.
One Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick deceased had obtained the lease of the land of the said tea estate from the Government of West Bengal.
By virtue of his companytrol over appellants 1 and 2, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick was the Managing Director of the said two companypanies and the three tea gardens were under his management.
Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick died on March 15, 1992 and his legal representatives have been brought on record in both the suits.
8 of 1984 against the appellants as well as respondents 4 to 10 and 12 in the companyrt of Assistant District Judge, Jalpaiguri seeking for a declaration that the transfer of companytrolling interest of shares in appellants 1 and 2 are number valid and prayed for a declaration that Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick had all the legal and equitable rights, title and interest in respect of the Dharanipur Tea Estate and for restoration of possession.
It is number the case of respondent 11 that they ought to have been joined as a defendant in E.O. Suit No.
1 of 1985.
This appeal raises the question whether Terai Tea Company Pvt.
1 of 1985.
Ltd., respondent 11 herein, is entitled to be impleaded as a party defendant in E.O. Suit No.
240 of 1990 by order dated November 18, 1992.
On behalf of respondent II an oral prayer was made before the learned Single Judge for being impleaded as a defendant in Extraordinary Suit No.
Ltd. is added as party defendant, and at the time of trial it can lead evidence to the prejudice of the interest of other defendants.
Apart from any technical difficulty, this Court is of the view that the presence of Terai Tea Co. Pvt.
With the setting aside the decree for specific performance, the sale deed that had been executed and registered stood automatically cancelled.
