JAGDISH SAWHNEY Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A suit was filed by Darshan Singh, Iqbal Singh, Gurjinder Singh, Ranjit Singh, Harbinder Singh and Harbans Singh against Hardeep Singh, Kuldip Singh, Jagir Kaur, Surinder Singh, Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the shareholders of the transport company, New Janta Bus Service Private Limited, Batala having duly acquired the shares of the company from the previous shareholders and having the present shareholding as set forth in the plaint and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same and in respect of the premises, office building, equipment and other properties mentioned in the schedule thereto. After notice, the defendants resisted the said suit on various grounds in their written statement. Issues were raised. On 28-2-1995 as none was present on behalf of the defendants the suit was proceeded ex parte and plaintiffs were asked to lead evidence. On consideration of that evidence the trial Court made a decree ex parte as claimed in the plaint. While the suit was pending temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 had been granted in the said suit restraining the defendants from alienating the assets of the company. On the allegation that temporary injunction had been violated, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A was filed to which the appellant had been impleaded as respondent though he was not a party to the suit. That application was pending when the suit was decreed.

(3.) An appeal was filed by the appellant against the decree made by the trial Court in the suit along with two applications one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the other for permission to file appeal. The appellant averred in the first application that he came to know about the decree only on 2-2-1996 when his authorised representative went to inspect the record in the office of Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar and thereafter he took prompt steps to obtain certified copies of the judgment and decree and filed the appeal on 9-2-1996 thus explaining the delay in preferring the appeal. In the second application, the appellant alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit had colluded with each other in getting the decree passed to his detriment and hence the application for permission to prefer appeal is filed. That application is still pending consideration.