(1.) By this judgment IA Nos. 6043/2003, 7722/2003 and 7728/2003 moved by M/s. Mitsui and Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant', for short) are being decided. LA No. 6043/2003 is an application moved under Section 151, CPC by the applicant, filing objections to the Order dated 17/07/2000, decreeing the suit and Order dated 25/10/2000, giving directions and appointing a Receiver for demarcation of Plot Nos. 28 and 28-A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. Prayer is made for modification of the Order dated 25th October, 2002 and keeping its operation in abeyance, till decision of the application. IA No. 7728/2003 is an application moved under Order 1. Rule 10, CPC, by the applicant seeking impleadment in the suit already decided on 17/07/2000. The last IA No. 7722/2003 is an application moved by the applicant under Order XXI. Rules 97 and 101 read with Sections 47, 141 and 151, CPC, to declare the decree passed in the suit as null and void and to keep in abeyance the directions for demarcation.
(2.) Before we consider the above applications on merits and the objections raised as to their maintainability, it would be necessary to notice the facts, essential and relevant for decision of these applications.
(3.) The plaintiffs vide an agreement dated 16/09/1975, agreed to purchase from defendant No. 1. Smt. Avtar Mohan Singh (widow of Bhai Mohan Singh), defendant No. 2 Dr. Parvinder Singh, defendant No. 3-Mr. Analjit Singh and defendant No, 4- Bhai Manjit Singh, property No. 28, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. The defendant Nos. 2-4 being her sons also joined as parties to the said Agreement. Upon the death of defendant No. 2, his legal heirs were also brought on record. It is the plaintiffs case that legal/symbolic possession of the entire property No. 28, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi was handed over to the plaintiffs' predecessors in title in September, 1975 itself. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got the physical possession of the property from the tenant upon it vacating the premises. The requisite conveyance/sale deed was not executed on account of demand by L & DO for unearned increase and other disputes between the parties, remaining unresolved. Thereupon plaintiffs filed the present/above suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell.