SWARAN KUMARI Vs. SANTOSH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved on behalf of deft. 2 and 3 u/S. 151 of Civil Procedure Code . alleging that on 8.2.91, Sh. Arun Mohan, Advocate for the non-applicant/plaintiff stated before this Court that he gave up his claim in suit against deft. 2 and 3 and case should be listed early. On this statement the Court was pleased to pronounce orders that suit against deft. 2 and 3 shall be dismissed and their counsel may not appear further in the suit. Learned counsel for deft. 2 and 3 also intimated this fact to them by a letter of the same date. Therefore, the prayer is that judgment announced orally on 8.2.91 may be recorded in writing.

(2.) In reply, it is alleged that this application is an unfortunate tactic in a litigation where tactics have successfully delayed its disposal. The background of the litigation is that suit for possession was filed in 1976. In the joint W/S of all the defts. including deft. 2 and 3 claim of the plaintiff for possession was resisted. After completion of pleadings in 1977, the defts. realised that the suit is bound to be decreed and that the decree will carry with it the liability of mesne profits. Therefore, deft. 2 and 3 thought that to defeat the claim of the plaintiff and keeping in view that deft. 1 i.e. their mother did not have nor was likely to have any means of satisfying the decree, they should amend their W/S so that they could continue the fight in her name and at the same time derive for themselves an argument with regard to the claim for mesne profits. The matter then dragged on for 8 years and in 1985 Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the disposal of the matter early and, if possible, within six months. Defts. however, were successful in delaying the matter and evidence could be completed only in August, 1985. Thereafter the matter has been lingering on for arguments On 8.2.91, plaintiff's counsel pointed out how this litigation had been delayed and injury was being caused for which there would be no recompense. Therefore, this Court agreed to take up the matter on day to day basis. It was true that counsel for the plaintiff had said that if the suit could be decided and judgment given within 2 weeks from that date, the plaintiff may not press her claim against deft. 2 and 3 and at least she will have the possession in her lifetime. Upon that submission, the Court observed that it was not possible to tie down the court in this regard and thereafter plaintiff's counsel said that the matter may be decided at the earliest according to law. On merits the allegations made in the application were denied.

(3.) I have beared arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had made a statement as given in the reply and not as given in the application.