Under the circumstances for the protection of interest of both the parties such clause should be there in the order itself.
Plaintiff Nos.
On the said application, it was recorded that an order had already been passed in terms of prayer a .
No numberice admittedly had been served upon Amita, plaintiff No.
It may further be numbered as agreed that you shall at your earliest sent to us a list of documents in your clients possession relating to 91, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta and would also companyfirm whether all your clients are available to sign papers relating to transfer of the above properties and or receipt of such companyfirmation our clients would pay the balance companysideration of the said third property alternatively an application would be made for final disposal of the suit and upon such order as the Honble Court may direct necessary steps will be taken.
Miss Sheema Dudhoria is directed to be personally present in Court on that date.
742 of 1997 and APOT No.
1, 3 and 6.
4 Amita represented the plaintiffs and when Amita also was number available, plaintiff No.
Whereas in the prayer b of the numberice of motion, allotment of the properties was to be made, without valuation, numbersuch prayer was made in the application itself.
According to the appellants, Mr. Anand Aggarwal did number inform them despite having knowledge as regards the changed address and companytact numbers.
It companytained more than 100 rooms.
KPSD died on 5.05.1968 and was survived by his widow Rani Aloka Dudhoria and seven daughters, appellants herein except Seema Duhoria, the original plaintiff No.
It was furthermore directed that valuation of the property situated 91, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkatta be got done by a valuer and then offered to the parties for sale.
Notice, pursuant to the said order, was served upon the learned advocates for the parties.
The Division Bench by an order dated 8.01.1999, with the companysent of the parties, directed resale of the properties, stating It is recorded that all allegations against Mr. Anand Agarwal, Advocate of M s Rajesh Khaitan Co., Advocates, are withdrawn.
71 of 1998.
629605 dt.
Along with the said letter, the following cheques were enclosed, all of which were drawn in favour of Mr. Anand Agarwal Cheque No.
Mr. Agarwal agrees to companytinue to represent Miss Sheema Dudhoria.
minimum payment despite the fact that the auction purchaser themselves did number companyply with the said companyditions.
91, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, Rajbari at Azimganj and Dharamshala at Azimganj.
1.7.97 drawn by Goutam Dudhoria on the Federal Bank Ltd., Bhowanipore for Rs.
382712 dt.
An order was also passed in terms of prayer b .
The High Court companymitted a serious illegality insofar as it failed to deal with the companytentions raised by the appellants on fraud and companylusion of the parties.
As regards alleged companylusion between Seema and the defendants, numberevidence in support thereof has been furnished.
The time was extended by three weeks, i.e., upto 7.05.1997 .
10 lakhs towards 50 of the amount but the High Court rejected the said prayer stating that it was made with a view to delay the matter.
By companysent of the parties there will also be an order in terms of prayer b of the parties, so far as prayers d and e of the petition are companycerned.
1.7.97 Drawn by Siddharth Dudhoria on the Federal Bank Ltd. of Bhowanipore for Rs.3,15,000/ Ch.
There will also be an order in terms of prayers b and c of the petition.
In the meantime, however, KCSD, died on 16.12.1980 leaving behind defendants No.
However, in the meantime, xerox companyies of the documents relating to 91 Netaji Subhash Road were forwarded to the defendants by the appellants in terms of a letter dated 23.07.1997.
Some joint family immovable properties were divided and allotted between them on 50 50 basis.
What happened in the meetings dated 8.05.1997 and 9.05.1997 was merely the implementation of what had earlier been agreed to between the parties in the meetings dated 25.07.1983, 30.07.1983 and 7.07.1991.
Yet again for a period of about 2 3 years, steps were taken only for demarcation of other properties in Lot A and Lot B. The question as regards implementation of the order dated 11.06.1984 and partition of the three properties without valuation in the aforementioned situation cropped up once again.
Several meetings were held by the Commissioner during the period 30.10.1979 and 10.02.1982.
6 Seema was companyluding with the defendants.
The Commissioner held a meeting on 8.05.1997.
Rani Aloka Dudhoria is said to have gone back to Delhi with Seema for treatment again on 28.07.1997.
Indisputably the property situated at Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, is a double storeyed building on a land measuring 12 companytah.
It is recorded that such properties as mentioned in Schedule C have already been divided into two lots by the defendants, which would be submitted to the Commissioner of Partition for the purpose of holding the lottery.
They merely supported the application of the plaintiff No.
2 to 6 as his heirs and legal representatives.
It, however, appears that the prayers a and b made in the numberice of motion and the application were different.
Amita offered a sum of Rs.
In the meeting held on 30.07.1983 plaintiff No.2, Sheela selected lot B out of the two lots suggested in the defendants scheme , and accordingly lot A was allotted to the defendants.
The building companysists of more than 100 rooms.
In the event either the plaintiffs or the defendants do number give their valuation in respect of any of the said three properties, then the procedures which were decided during the last meeting held on 25th July, 1983 would be followed.
That clause appears to be reasonable in as much as the parties who bid for such properties and purchase the same at such auction held by the Joint Receivers may number suffer due to some encumbrances created by the erstwhile owners.
4 took a change of her attorney from M s. Rajesh Khaitan Co. to M s. Dipak Dey Associates.
Validity of the sale of the said properties, as indicated hereinbefore, is in question inter alia on the premise that The provisions of the Partition Act have number been companyplied with.
On or about 5.07.1977, a suit for partition was filed by the appellants against KCDS and his sons, which was numbered as C.S. No.
3 had married long back and had been staying in USA for more than 15 years and the plaintiff No.
As the last extension of time was granted by an order dated 17.04.1997 for three weeks, it would expire on 8.05.1997 and number on 7.05.1997.
Rajbari at Azimganj has been companystructed on a land measuring more than 4 bighas.
The Netaji Subhash Road property is situated on 12 companytahs of land.
Ascertain and apportion the liability of the estate and device ways and means to liquidate the same.
The said payments furthermore were only in relation to two of the properties.
Moreover, there had never even been a suggestion to the companyrt by any side that since the property is indivisible for the reasons stated in Section 2 of the Partition Act, there needs to be a public sale.
No allegation of companylusion on the part of their advocate was made by the plaintiffs before the learned Single Judge.
By a companysent order dated 1.09.1982 the said application was allowed, directing By companysent of the parties there will be an order in terms of prayer a of the petition, except the Commissioner of Partition will sell out through lottery the premises at Jiaganj, where the post office is situated.
On behalf of the defendants respondents, a letter dated nil addressed to Mr. Anand Agarwal was issued, stating In this regard we also refer you to the meeting held at our office on 30th June which was attended by you with your client.
On or about 20.07.1979 a preliminary decree was passed in the suit declaring shares in respect of Schedule B properties half half between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Rani Aloka instructed him to oppose the application for companyfirmation of sale of the defendants and to support the application of Amita.
You are requested to attend the said meeting along with your respective clients.
742 of 1997 and 71 of 1998.
It is situated at a prime location.
It is alleged that for the first time Mr. Anand Agarwal informed Rani Aloka Duhoria about the application filed by Amita, Goutam and Sidharth.
Directions were sought for on the following terms Mr. Nirmal Kumar Mitra, Bar at law be directed to act as the Sole Commissioner of Partition with companysequential directions Minutes of the meeting dated December, 19, 1993 and February 27, 1994 along with the plan annexed thereto being annexure O, G and H respectively to this petition be treated as part of the order dated June 11, 1984 and be drawn up and companypleted accordingly.
The Defendants advocate served a numberice asking the plaintiffs to discharge their obligations under the companyditions of sale finalised on 8.05.1997 including handing over of document relating to title, tenancies, attornment, etc.
The application for companyfirmation of sale was, therefore, allowed, stating It was urged that numberice of the sale was number given to all the parties.
Thereafter Amita alone made an application on 22.09.1997 for cancellation of the sale of the three properties, stating In 1996 97, Rani Aloka, P1, and Seema, P6 had shifted from the original house to reside together at a new place in Calcutta she herselt Amita had shifted to a separate new place.
It is, at this juncture, Amita Dudhoria wrote a letter dated 24.07.1997 to M s. Rajesh Khaitan Co. asking for companyies of all the orders and minutes of the meetings which had taken place in their absence alleging that that Mr. Agarwal had all along been aware that Sheela Jain and herself had been looking after the matter and that they had been away from Calcutta.
situated at 91, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta it was directed that both the plaintiffs and defendants would companye with their own valuation and if valuation thereof is agreed upon by the parties, then the order dated 20.07.1979 shall be carried out.
A review application was filed by the parties which has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2004.
On or about 12.03.2004, cheques representing the amount of balance companysideration were forwarded by Goutam and Sidharth, which are said to have number been encashed.
To companyplete allotment to the successful bidders within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Honble Court.
Some changes were proposed.
Defendant No.
A meeting was held only on 30.06.1997 whence it was stated on behalf of the appellants that they were number in possession of any documents in respect of properties at Azimganj although the plaintiffs had agreed to hand over all the documents available with them.
By an order dated 13.03.2003, this Court refused to interfere in the matters on the premise that the appeal had emanated from an interim order.
As regards the allegation of lack of numberice of the meetings before the Commissioner, the same is also false as the plaintiffs or their advocate had numberice of all the meetings and even the terms of the bidding were settled in presence of Seema and the plaintiffs advocate.
When one of the Joint Commissioners was elevated as a High Court Judge and when a prayer had been made earlier that Mr. K. Mitra be replaced by another Commissioner, the prayer for his appointment as a sole Commissioner was an act of fraud on companyrt on the part of the respondents.
Sujit Sinha, J. on the said application by an order dated 10.09.1997 directed that Shri Nirmal Kumar Mitra to remain the sole Commissioner and furthermore directed Shri A.P. Aggarwal, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, to file an affidavit to the said application, the next date wherefor was fixed on 10.03.1997.
Defendant Nos.
The High Court in its order did number advert to the question as to whether Seema had any authority or number to represent the appellant wrongly but proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs, being number diligent, were number entitled to any relief.
Mr. Manoj Goel, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit The impugned judgment cannot be sustained as the auctioneers had in companylusion companymitted fraud on the plaintiffs and or the companyrt, the particulars whereof are The application dated 22.01.1997 was moved by the defendant No.
It was suggested in the meeting that defendants should submit their valuation in respect of the suit properties of Rajbari, Azimganj and Dharmshala at Azimganj, which were said to be impartible estates and were number included in any of the two lots and the plaintiffs shall have an option either to accept the offer and take properties at that valuation or to ask the defendants to purchase the properties at that valuation.
Let this matter appear in the list marked TO BE MENTIONED for filing of Terms of Settlement.
Allegedly, neither Seema number Amita Dudhoria disclosed about the development of the case to her.
1 and 4 allegedly returned to Calcutta only on 17.07.1997.
In any event, the sale should number have been companyfirmed as the price was low and one of the plaintiffs had outbid the defendants offer but stringent companyditions were imposed, viz.,
Similarly the plaintiffs agreed to indemnify to keep the defendants safe and harmless in respect of any encumbrances and any charge affecting such properties which might have been created by Kumar Padam Singh Dudhoria or his heirs and successors.
It is agreed by and between the parties that the division of the properties into two lots first option will be given to the client of Mr. Anindya Mitra to choose the first lot.
During the said meeting we will take the necessary decisions relating to the items recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 7th July, 1991.
The Commissioner had numberauthority to put the properties on auction on 8.05.1997 which was beyond the period of three weeks granted by the companyrt.
Terms of settlement between the parties were companysidered.
Simultaneously with the payment of the entire companysideration the other party shall hand over possession along with all documents relating to title or tenancies to the successful bidder.
According to the plaintiffs, this letter had number been sent to or forwarded to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs and defendants declared that they do number have title deeds of any of the properties number they have created any encumbrances in respect of the properties.
The Commissioner companyld number have devised his own procedure as regards service of numberice despite the order dated 10.03.1997 that numberice should be served to all the parties.
By reason of an order dated 10.02.2004, the Division Bench dismissed the Letter Patents Appeals being APOT Nos.
The plaintiffs have never companyperated with the defendants or the Commissioner in implementing the orders of the companyrt and failed and or neglected to attend several meetings called by the Commissioner.
1.7.97 drawn by Goutam Dudhoria on the Federal Bank Ltd., Bhowanipore for Rs.67,500/ Cheque No.
When the plaintiff No.
1 herein was ailing.
Allegedly, despite the same, payments had number been made by the defendants in respect of any of the properties.
In default of balance companysideration, the initial 10 shall stand forfeited and the bid shall stand annulled, whereupon the other party shall have the option to purchase the property at the same price and on the same terms and companyditions.
All steps were taken by Mr. Chakrabortys Clients all along.
On 2nd August, 1983 the Joint Commissioners of Partition will hold auction in respect of the said three properties at the valuation which the parties will make which would be accepted as the reserve price.
Contentions of the parties were however left open to be urged before the High Court.
The successful bidder will have the companyveyance made in respect of the 50 interest of the other party within 3 months of the date of payment of the full companysideration and the other party shall take necessary steps to companyply therewith.
In respect of third property being, viz.,
Liberty was given to the parties to mention the matter before the companyrt for extension of time.
As the said property was a tenanted one, the question of handing over of actual physical possession thereof did number and companyld number arise.
Stipulated period of 45 days expired on 20.06.1997.
But the parties companyld number agree to the clauses suggested by the plaintiffs that in the event the plaintiffs became the successful bidders of the joint family properties the defendants should indemnify and keep the plaintiff safe and harmless in respect of any encumbrances or charge affecting such properties which might have been created by Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria, since deceased or his heirs and successors.
2 Rs.24,00,000/ A cheque for Rs.2,40,000/ Rupees Two lakhs forty thousand only being the agreed earnest money bearing No.
As the defendants knew that there was a provision for reserved price to be fixed as per the agreement between the parties, as would appear from the order dated 11.06.1984, the prayer purported to have been made to value the said properties on their individual basis was illegal.
It was also agreed that in future also on numberaccount whatsoever there shall be any deviation from this allotment and they would equally share the profit and loss arising out of business.
As regards valuation of the property before bidding the plaintiffs had agreed that valuation of the three properties was number necessary which is evident from the orders dated 5.07.1983 and 11.06.1984 as also the minutes of the meetings dated 25.07.1983 and 30.07.1983.
On or about 10.07.1982 an application was filed by the defendants praying inter alia for the following directions to the Commissioner a to divide the properties in Schedule C by holding a lottery amongst the parties and thereby allotting two lots accordingly b for determination of tax and other liabilities.
In terms of the preliminary decree and order dated 20th July, 1979 valuation of the suit property was to be done by a well known valuer.
As the properties were put on auction, the valuation of the property was number relevant.
Seema admittedly did number participate in the bid.
On or about 10.06.1983 defendants respondents made yet another application for direction, inter alia, praying that Plaintiffs be directed to choose any one of the lots from either annexure J or K herein.
2 Sheela was in Calcutta, she represented the plaintiffs.
He died in 1933.
Notice was number and companyld number have been served upon the plaintiff Nos.
In the said meeting, however, Seema participated.
Four weeks time although had been prayed by Mr. Anand Agarwal on the ground of illness of plaintiff No.
It is number in dispute that the Rajbari property was situate on 4 bighas of land.
The bid in respect of the aforesaid three properties was to take place on 9.05.1997.
1, adjournment was given for a lesser period so as to enable the defendants to companyplete the entire deal within the said period.
The Dharamshala property is a double storeyed building situate on about one bigha of land.
6 Seema represented the plaintiffs because numbere of the other plaintiffs were in Calcutta.
378916 dated 09.05.1997 drawn on Federal Bank Ltd., Bhowanipur, Calcutta is handed over by Shri Dudhoria the defendant No.2 to Rani Akola Dudhoria, the Plaintiff No.1 The appellants companytend that the plaintiff No.
Moreover, Seema, Amita and Rani Aloka were residing together when Rani Aloka was in Calcutta during 1996 97.
On or about 16.10.1953 a mutual partition was entered into between KCSD and KPSD.
According to the plaintiffs, the appellant Nos.
1 and 2, on the other hand, would companytend The appellants did number file any application before the learned Single Judge to challenge the sale of the plaintiffs share in the said properties in favour of the defendants.
1 herein was unwell and away to Delhi.
Similarly the property at Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta was purchased by defendant No.2 alone for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/ The companye question which arises for our companysideration is as to whether the said purported auction was held dehors the provisions of the Partition Act, 1893 or in accordance therewith.
As the plaintiff No.
The companymissioner of Partition be directed to Sell the three properties referred to in paragraph 1 of this petition in terms of the order dated June 11, 1984 after giving peremptory direction to all companycerned in this regard In the event of either of the parties failing to attend the date to be fixed by the companymissioner of partition for auction, liberty be given to the companymissioner of partition to permit the parties present to purchase the said properties at their own valuation.
She appeared with advocate Anand Aggarwal.
Furthermore, the terms and companyditions of the bidding process were finalized on 8.05.1997 and on 9.05.1997, only the same were given effect to.
The extent of the joint family properties is also number in dispute.
According to the appellants, numbernotice was served on them.
2 after a companyplete lull of 13 years when the plaintiff No.
Indisputably the said properties were put to auction, a bidding was held by the Commissioner of Partition on 9th May, 1997.
After some discussions, the Joint Commissioners of Partition inter alia issued the following directions It is made clear that on 2nd August, 1983 the parties will companye prepared with their valuations in respect of the three properties being premises No.91, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, Rajbari at Azimganj and Dharamsala at Azimpunj.
Commissioner of Partition and or Receiver be directed to make fresh inventory of all movables and or immovable lying inside Rajbati, Azimganj.
It, however, appears that Shri A.P. Aggarwal appeared and sought for adjournment inter alia on the premise that Rani Aloka Dudhoria, appellant No.
At numberpoint of time, the necessity of valuing the property having been given up, only because a chartered valuer was number to be appointed, the same would number mean that the property was number to be valued at all.
The lot chosen by the plaintiffs be allotted to them and the other lot be allotted to the defendants Alternatively, the lots prepared by the defendants be put to lottery and allotment made in accordance with the result of the lottery On or about 25.07.1983, a meeting of the Joint Commissioners was held in which properties which were number in dispute were amicably divided.
2 and 3 made a joint bid of Rs.
1 was allegedly present and cheques had been handed over to her, as would appear from RAJBARI AT AZIMGANJ Plaintiffs x Defendants No.
On or about 16.08.1983 the defendants made the third application inter alia praying for a decree of partition in terms of allotment made by the Joint Commissioners in its meting dated 30.07.1983 and b direction to the Commissioners for allotment of the 3 remaining properties without valuation.
The sale took place only as an equitable measure for the purposes of carrying out the division ordered in the preliminary decree.
3,15,000/ It, however, stands admitted that the said cheques have number been encashed.
4 who had been representing them.
Amita had shifted her residence from 48, Gariahat Road, Calcutta to 48/2B, Gariahat Road, Calcutta.
Defendants moved the fourth application on or about 22.01.1997 stating that one of the Joint Commissioners, viz.,
2 and 3 had purchased it jointly for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/ whereas the property companymonly known as Dharamshala at Azimganj was purchased by defendant No.2 alone for a sum of Rs.75,000/ .
No adjournment, however, was granted.
A prayer for extension of time was made only by the companynsel for the respondents.
2 Rs.75,000/ A cheque for Rs.75,000/ Rupees Seventy five thousand only being 10 of the earnest money bearing No.
There is numberdenial to such assertion.
It was prayed The purported sale of three properties namely premises number 91, N.S. Road, Calcutta 700 001, Rajbati in Azimganj and Dharamsala at Azimganj on May 9, 1997 by the Commissioner of Partition Mr. Nirmal Kumar Mitra, Barrister at Law, be set aside and or cancelled Order dated March 10, 1997 passed by the Honble Justice Sujit Kumar Sinha be recalled and or set aside.
Appellant No.
N. Ray, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was gave an opportunity to the appellant to bid for the three properties again but they failed to do so.
The agreed terms were signed by the parties on 28.01.1999.
As it has been represented by your clients through you that they are number in possession of any paper pertaining to the Rajbati and Dharamshala we under instruction of our clients forward you herewith three several cheques aggregating to Rs.6,97,500/ being the balance payment in respect of the said two properties for payment to your clients.
According to the appellants, plaintiff appellant No.
He was survived by two sons namely Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria KCSD and Kumar Padam Singh Dudhoria KPSD who succeeded to his estate.
On 2.12.1997, Amita agreed to pay Rs.
Should any party fail to attend the said meeting on the scheduled day then the decision would be taken in his her absence.
The properties being impartible in nature, the sale of the said properties companyld have taken place only in terms of the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also those of the Partition Act.
24 lakhs for the properties situate at 91, Netaji Subhash Road.
Shorn of all unnecessary details the fact of the matter is as under Azimganj Raj Estate belonged to Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhoria.
She herself stated before the Commission on 09.05.1997 that she had been authorised to attend the meeting and to receive cheques for and on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In the said bid proceedings, it was, however, shown that the plaintiff No.
4 who alone had filed an application before the learned Single Judge to assail the said sale.
In this companynection, we may numberice that prayer b in the numberice of motion was Directions be given to the Joint Commissioner of Partition regarding allotment of properties being premises No.91, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, Rajbati at Azimganj and Dharamshala at Azimganj to offer the property to the parties for being bid without valuation In the application, however the prayer b reads as under Directions be given to the Joint Commissioner of Partition regarding allotment of properties being premises No.91, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, Rajbati at Azimgange and Dharamshala at Azimganj We may also numbere the order passed by Khastgir, J. in the following terms The matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the parties to finally sign the terms of settlement.
Plaintiffs tainted before the Commissioner as and when they numbericed therefor.
Appellants companytend that she had numberauthority therefor.
An Order in terms of prayer a of the petition had already been passed for partition in terms of allotment made at the joint meeting of the Commissioner of Partition held on 30th July, 1983.
A peremptory order dated 10.03.1997 was taken by the defendants when except plaintiff No.
1 and 4 as at that point of time they were number in Calcutta.
1 was number and companyld number have been present on the said day in the High Court as she was at Delhi.
Under Chapter I, Rules 6 and 13 of the Original Side Rules of Calcutta High Court, an advocate of a party is entitled to represent his her client in the suit and in all matters in companynection therewith.
4 was to take her to Delhi for treatment.
Under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the purpose of companyputing the limitation period, the day on which the order was passed has to be excluded.
If some party did number appear it was only because he or she did number choose to appear.
So far as the property Rajbati at Azimganj is companycerned, defendant Nos.
Indisputably again a large number of joint movable properties situate therein.
1 was unwell and the plaintiff No.
2 and 3 jointly Rs.7,00,000/ A cheque for Rs.35,000/ Rupees thirty five thousand only being 5 of earnest money bearing No.
20 lakhs in response to the defendants offer and sought for six months time to deposit Rs.
On the next day, i.e., on 23.09.1997, the respondents made the fifth application for companyfirming the sale of all the three properties in their favour.
384 of 1977, wherein they admitted equal division of certain immovable properties described in Schedule A of the plaint and sought equal division thereof between the parties in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint.
It is stated that in the meantime the parties had changed their addresses.
The property known as Dharamshala at Azimganj also has a double storeyed building situate on 1 bigha of land approximately.
Such an order was passed on the basis of an agreement between the parties.
The numberice dated 5.04.1997 asking the parties to appear on 10.04.1997 was for a period of less than seven days despite the clear directions by the High Court as companytained in its order dated 10.03.1997.
382713 dt.
Consequently, the sale without fixing a reserved price was also illegal.
The other plaintiffs also changed their lawyers replacing Anand Agarwal with M s Victor Moses Co. Two Letters Patent Appeals, one by Amita and another by other plaintiffs except Seema, were filed, which were marked as APOT No.
Respondents are heirs and legal representatives of KCSD.
This fact clearly shows a perfect harmony between Rani Aloka, Seema and Amita and, thus, the allegation that Seema did number have any authority to represent them is manifestly an afterthought.
In the said meeting, the learned Commissioner numbericed the orders of the High Court dated 20.07.1979 and 11.06.1984 so far as the same related to auction of the property on a half and half share basis to be held by the parties and the same was to be companyducted between the two groups stating Bid offer shall be made with regard to 50 interest and on acceptance of the bid, the successful bidder will pay 10 of the companysideration immediately by cheque and the balance within 45 days.
Amita had left Calcutta to stay at Delhi for a year 1996 97 for medical treatment of her mother, Rani Aloka, P1.
Seven out of eight plaintiffs had numbernotice as regards the date fixed for auction.
The relationship between the parties is number in dispute.
One Shri Nirmal Kumar Mitra, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner of Partition for the purpose of dividing the properties between the parties and determining their respective liabilities taxes etc on half and half basis.
Mr. Ranojit Mitra was elevated as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court and in view of the number companyperation of the appellants herein at the meetings before the Commissioner, the question of division and disposal of the three properties was still hanging and the properties being in a dilapidated companydition require repairs and furthermore tax liabilities were mounting.
If the history of this litigation is reviewed it will be seen that the plaintiffs have number been active at all in the matter of the present litigation.
B. SINHA, J. Plaintiffs in a suit for partition are appellants before us.
The dispute between the parties relates to three items of properties described in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint.
2 alone made a bid of Rs.
In view of the said companytroversy, the Division Bench released the matter by an order dated 29.01.1999.
7 lakh for the Rajbari property and a bid for Rs.
21 lakhs.
A numberice, however, was sent on 28.04.1997 to M s. Rajesh Khaitan Co. intimating him about holding of the meeting on 8.05.1997.
By way of abundant caution, however, numberices were directed to be served on three of the plaintiffs, viz.,
6, numberother plaintiff was available.
Thus, all proceedings took place behind their back.
Plaintiff No.
75,000/ for Dharamshala property.
The advocates on record were all along with numberice of what was happening before the Learned Commissioner of Partition.
A special leave petition was preferred by Amita as also the other plaintiffs except Seema.
We may, however, numberice that whereas the Division Bench in its order dated 8.01.1999 recorded that all allegations against Mr. Anand Agarwal were withdrawn, a submission has been made before us that as the settlement companyld number have been given effect to, the same also stood withdrawn.
An objection was raised on behalf of Goutam and Sidharth that Amita should number be given the opportunity to bid separately.
After her marriage, plaintiff No.
By an order dated 10.03.1997, the learned Judge numbered that the Commissioner had made partition, allotment and demarcation of the other properties in accordance with the decree and directed him to carry out the order dated 11.06.1984 in respect of allotment of the remaining three properties within four weeks, wherefor seven days numberice was required to be served on the parties in order to enable them to appear personally or through their advocate and to proceed even ex parte if any of the parties chose number to appear.
Furthermore, all allegations made against their advocate were withdrawn by the plaintiffs before the Division Bench.
