SAMARJIT CHAKRAVARTY Vs. TEJ PROPERTIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15th April, 2014, the following order was passed in these suits:

(2.) ON 16th May, 2014 though the roster had changed but the suits were again listed before the undersigned, perhaps treating them as part heard. I must also record that though the counsel for Samarjit and Arati on that date initially suggested that the suits be listed for hearing in terms of aforesaid before the concerned roster Bench but upon the undersigned informing of the labour put in perusing the files and culling out the controversy therein and further stating that another Bench will have to again devote comparatively longer time resulting in wastage of precious judicial time, the counsel withdrew his suggestion. The suits were however adjourned for hearing to 23rd May, 2014 and thereafter to 18th July, 2014 when the counsels were heard on the Issue No.(i) framed on 15th April, 2014 and which was ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue and which for the sake of convenience is again reproduced herein below: "(i) Whether the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No.1474/2008, on the basis of the compromise dated 11th November, 2005 with the defendants no.3&4 in the said suit have any locus to challenge the decree dated 25th July, 2007 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell by the predecessor -ininterest of the defendants no.3&4 in favour of the defendant no.1, especially when the said decree against the defendants no.3&4 has attained finality? OPP"

(3.) THE factual controversy having been recorded in the order dated 15th April, 2014 reproduced herein above, need for reiterating the same does not arise. The counsel for Samarjit and Arati attempted to argue on the merits of the claim in the suit to show as to how the decree dated 25th July, 2007 in CS(OS) No.2501/1997 is fraudulent and liable to be set aside. However he was reminded that the question of going into the merits of the challenge would arise only if Samarjit and Arati are able to satisfy this Court of having a locus to challenge the said decree. His attention was also invited to paras no.8 and 14 of the order dated 15th April, 2014 recording my prima facie opinion on the subject. The counsel for Samarjit and Arati on the said aspect made only the following contentions: