6 SCR 77 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
On July 14, 1982, fresh writ of summons was directed to be issued for service on the added respondent, namely, M s. Kabari Pvt.
On June 1, 1982.
8084 of 1993 was directed against dismissal of the appeal No.
On September 26, 1991, the suit appeared before the Senior Master but numberody appeared for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, namely, Shivanath Sharoff Ors.,
For the purpose of appreciating the rival companytentions of the parties in these appeals, the relevant facts relating to the aforesaid Suit No.
In the said suit, an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the Vendors from dealing with or disposing or the said premises was made and an ad interim order was passed on such application for interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
619 of 1992 were, however dismissed by a companymon judgment by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on February 16, 1993.
The plaintiffs informed their Solicitors M s. T. Banerjee Co. on March 17, 1992 that the steps should be taken to prefer appeal.
On the companytrary, the learned companynsel for the petitioners in the said special leave petitions mentioned the matter on several occasions for adjournment.
As a result, the special leave petitions were number even listed for hearing on several occasions.
Hence, as a last resort they preferred special leave petitions before this Court assailing the orders dismissing the said appeals.
On September 10, 1991, the plaintiffs affirmed an application for extension of time to carry out the amendment and on October 10, 1991 such application was moved in Court.
531 of 1981.
There was an agreement on September 21, 1978, for sale of Property No.
531 of 1981 instituted in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
Appeal No.
The said application for extension of time to carry out Amendment was, however dismissed by the Court on March 13, 1992.
M s. Kabari Pvt.
The plaintiffs were also informed by M s. T. Banerjee Co. that the suit appeared in the special list and the prayer for a direction that the suit should go out of the special list was opposed by the defendants including M s. Kabari Pvt.
6913 6914 of 1994 has very strongly companytended that the plaintiffs respondents Shivnath Shroff and others filed the said Suit No.
619 of 1992 arising out of Suit No.
Ltd. after obtaining permission from the Urban Land and Ceiling authority.
410 of 1992 arising out of an order refusing to grant extension of time to effect amendment of plaint in Suit No.
It may be stated here that M s. L.P. Agarwalla Co. acted as Advocates for the plaintiffs in both the said Special Leave Petitions.
2 lacs between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
By an order dated September 22, 1982, the said suit was transferred to the High Court for disposal and the same is pending before the High Court.
410 of 1992 appeal No.
Ltd. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs by their letter requested their Solicitors M s. T. Banerjee Co. to companyply with the orders passed by the Court for effecting service upon the added respondent.
Considering the facts of the case, we have numberhesitation to hold that only at a later stage, the plaintiffs filed the review applications before the High Court on false and fabricated premises that after change of the solicitors, they companyld companye to .know about some relevant facts which companyld number be placed before the High Court on earlier occasion and accordingly review applications had been filed.
Pursuant to such agreement, the plaintiff had paid earnest money by cheque on August 28, 1978.
The appeals arising out of Special leave petition Civil Nos.
It may be mentioned here that the minutes of the Court proceeding indicate that Mr. Ranjanam Guha, learned Advocate appeared for the plaintiffs.
410 of 1992.
1981 the said premises had been companyveyed in favour of the said M s. Kabari Pvt.
According to the plaintiffs.
The Draft Deed of Conveyance was duly approved by the Solicitors of the vendors.
Ltd. affirmed an affidavit and filed the same in Court.
On July 20, 1981 the interlocutory application appeared as New Motion when the defendants Vendors appeared and submitted before the Court that the said premises No.
8A. Burdwan Road, in favour of M s. Kabari Pvt.
Ltd. and the suit was dismissed.
In March, 1986, M s T. Banerjee Co. the Solicitors of the plaintiffs wrote a latter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax on behalf of the plaintiffs that the entire matter relating to the transfer of the suit premises to Ms. Kabari Pvt.
The Vendors, however, transferred the said premises No.
531 of 1981 for amendment of the plaint seeking to implead M s. Kabari Pvt.
Ltd. On March 8, 1982, the plaintiffs made an application in the said Suit No.
6254 and 6913 of 1994 are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on the Review Application for setting aside the order passed in Appeal No.
M s. Khaitan Co. The plaintiff No.
After receiving oral information from M s. T. Banerjee Co. the plaintiffs wrote on August 9, 1991 to M s. T. Banerjee Co. that the plaintiffs had number been informed about the earlier order passed on July 19, and July 14, 1982.
On September 11, 1991, M s. T. Banerjee Co. requested the plaintiffs to call on their office for perusal of the draft application prepared by the learned companynsel and such application was affirmed.
M s. Kabari Pvt.
On June 25, 1991, the suit appeared for scrutiny before the Senior Master on the original side of the Calcutta High Court and an Assistant of M s. T. Banerjee Co. appeared before the Senior Master and the matter was adjourned to July 11, 1991.
It was only on September 30, 1991 an application for extension of tune to carry out amendment was affirmed by the plaintiffs and only on October 10, 1991 such application was moved in Court.
The Suit appeared for scrutiny before the Senior Master of the High Court Original Side on June 25, 1991 and thereafter on subsequent dates.
8083 of 1993 was directed against dismissal of the appeal No.
The Vendors made an application on June 23, 1980 for permission for sale in favour of the plaintiffs before the authorities under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act.
531 of 1981 are to be numbered as hereunder.
531 of 1981 for the plaintiffs died on November 15, 1990.
At this stage the plaintiffs changed their Solicitors and M s. L.F. Aggarwala and Co. was engaged as their Solicitors.
JUDGEMENT 1995 SUPP.
Ltd. allowed the application for amendment of plaint and the added respondent, namely, the said M s. Kabari Pvt.
Thereafter, on August 8, 1991 the suit again appeared for scrutiny before the Senior Master and Mr. Sunil Mitra of M s. Banerjee Co. appeared for the plaintiffs before the Senior Master and prayed for three weeks time.
410 of 1992 arising out of the order refusing to extend that time to effect amendment and Special leave petition No.
1 by cheque.
531 of 1981 for specific performance of companytract in the High Court and on the prayer of the plaintiffs to amend the body of the plaint and also the prayer portion, the High Court allowed the prayer as far back as on July 9, 1982.
On July 1, 1981, the Solicitors of the vendors, namely, M s. Khaitan Co. informed the solicitors of the plaintiffs that the permission to sale had been refused by the authorities under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act.
It is the further case of the plaintiff that on July 28, 1982, the plaintiffs also requested M s. T. Banerjee Co. to carry out the amendment and to serve the writ of summons.
Ltd. It was also companytended by the defendants that the agreement of sale dated September 21, 1978 in favour of the plaintiffs ceased to exist due to refusal to sell the said property by the authorities under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act.
15,000 was paid by the plaintiff No.
619 and 410 of 1992 arising out of Suit No.
1979, a further sum of Rs.
Oh June 18, 1992, the Registry of the High Court issued numberice to M s. T. Banerjee Co. informing that the suit should be set down in the special list of the Honble Judge taking interlocutory matters from July 14, 1992.
M s. T. Banerjee Co. wrote to the plaintiffs on September 26, 1991, that the said suit appeared in the scrutiny list and the same would be placed in the special list for scrutiny.
6912 and 6914 of 1994 which have been preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed on the Review Application for recalling the order dismissing Appeal No.
On July 14, 1982 fresh writ of summons was directed to be issued for service on Kabari Pvt.
1 was already in possession of the said property.
8A, Burdwan Road, had already been transferred to a third party, namely.
Admittedly, the plaintiffs were informed by their Solicitors on August 8, 1991 that for number taking steps in effecting amendment, the suit was appearing before the Senior Master for scrutiny.
The plaintiffs as a matter of fact were represented either by an Assistant to the Solicitors or by an Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs before the Senior Master.
In the said letter, the plaintiffs expressed surprises and dissatisfaction as proper steps had number been taken to effect amendment of the plaint.
531 of 1981 and two appeals being Appeal Nos.
Ltd. and also to effect other amendments in the body and prayer of the plaint.
A letter to that effect was also written .by M s. T. Banerjee Co. to the plaintiffs and according to the plaintiffs such letter was received by the plaintiffs on August 14, 1991.
Ltd. also appeared and the matter was adjourned till September 3, 1991.
The plaintiffs instructed M s. T. Banerjee Co. their Solicitors to prefer an appeal against the order of dismissal of the suit.
M s T. Banerjee Co. orally informed the plaintiff on August 8, 1991 that the suit had appeared in the scrutiny list.
It may be stated here that after purchasing the suit property M s. Kabari Pvt.
The plaintiffs thereafter filed Review Petitions on June 17,1993 before the Calcutta High Court for recalling the orders dismissing Appeals Nos.
Special leave petition C No.
On January 15.
filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court being Suit No.
619 of 1992 was filed against the said order dated July 14, 1992 dismissing the suit.
On December 20, 1991 M s. T. Banerjee Co. informed the plaintiff that the application had been adjourned till January 20,1991.
Such numberice had been received by M s. T. Banerjee Co. The suit appeared before the Court.
Ltd. was subjudice and pending decision of the Calcutta High Court.
The plaintiffs did number make any attempt to get the said special leave petitions taken up for hearing.
On April 17, 1993, the plaintiffs filed two special leave petitions before this Court.
The agreement was signed in the Office of Solicitors of the defendants Vendors, namely.
410 of 1992 and 619 of 1992 and M s. L.P. Agarwalla Co. acted as Solicitors for the plaintiffs petitioners.
Even then, the plaintiffs and their Solicitors were number at all diligent to take appropriate steps immediately.
On July 9, 1982, the Court after hearing the parties including M s. Kabari Pvt.
Mr. Khanna, Assistant of M s. T. Banerjee Co. again appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Senior Master on July 11, 1991 and prayed for time.
8A. Burdwan Road, Calcutta, for a companysideration of Rs.
Such appeal was numbered as appeal No.
On May 27, 1992, an appeal against order dated March 13, 1992 dismissing the application for extension of time to effect amendment was filed.
The plaintiffs, as a last resort, filed special leave petitions before this Court and did number think of filing the review applications.
It may be stated that M s. T. Banerjee Co. acted as Advocate on Record for the plaintiffs in companynection with the application for extension of time to carry out the amendment.
It is to be numbered here that the plaintiffs did number mention in the Review Applications that this Court had already been moved against the said orders of dismissal of the appeals by filing the aforesaid special leave petitions.
Accordingly, an order was passed for placing the suit in the special list.
The learned Advocate on behalf of M s. Kabari Pvt.
331 of 1981 .
The Appeals arising out of Special leave petition Civil Nos.
Ltd. also as a defendant in the said suit and they made an application for amendment of the plaint for incorporating facts number pleaded and also for moulding the prayer.
Mr. Nariman, learned senior companynsel appearing for the petitioners in Special leave petition C Nos.
Ltd. filed a suit for eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit premises before the learned Subordinate Judge, Allbore.
619 .of 1992 which arose out of the order of dismissal of Suit No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
It was only after the Review Petitions were allowed by the Calcutta High Court on March 18, 1994, the special leave petitions were allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn on the prayer of the petitioners.
531 of 1981.
Ltd. The plaintiffs in an attempt to delay the hearing of the suit and in furtherance of the evil design in adopting dilatory tactics, deliberately failed and neglected to take steps for effecting amendment of the plaint.
Both the said appeals, namely, appeal No.
The defendants Vendors also stated that by four separate deeds of companyveyance all dated July 6.
On September 3, 1991, the said suit appeared for scrutiny before the Senior Master but since numbersitting had taken place on that date, the matter was preferred till September 11, 1991.
Ltd. also appeared through the learned companynsel and the suit was dismissed.
It is stated that Mr. Debashis Mukherjee, Advocate and Partner of M s. T. Banerjee Co. who was dealing with the said Suit No.
Ltd. was restrained from alienating or encumbering the disputed premises.
