KISHAN CHAND DASS Vs. KUONI TRAVEL (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of I.A.No. 1659/2004 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1973( 'CPC') as well as I.A.No. 1660/2004 under Section 152 read with Sections 151 and 153 CPC filed by the plaintiffs in their suit for partition which stood finally disposed of on 18th December,2003. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of these two applications, both of which can be conveniently disposed of by a common order, are that a suit for partition in respect of property No.F-12 & 13, Connaught Place, New Delhi was filed by three persons namely, Shri Kishan Chand Dass, his wife Smt. Saroj Dass(since dead) and their son Shri Rahul Dass against M/s Kuoni Travel (India) Ltd. These plaintiffs had claimed that they were owners of 50% undivided share in the aforesaid property and the other 50% undivided share was owned by M/s Sita World Travels (India) Limited, which Company subsequently came to be taken over by M/s Kuoni Travel (India) Limited, the defendant in the suit. The prayers made in the plaint are reproduced below:-

(2.) M /s Kuoni Travel (India) Limited, the defendant in the suit, filed its written statement and one of the pleas taken was that the suit for partition had been filed with mala fide motives as prior to the filing of the suit the plaintiffs had not informed it of their intentions to have the suit property partitioned and if that had been done it would have agreed for partition since there was no dispute that the plaintiffs were owners of 50% undivided share in the suit property and the defendant was also owner of 50% undivided share as had been claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It was also claimed in the written statement by the defendant that as far as the relief of possession being claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of the portions where the defendant was in occupation as a statutory tenant of the plaintiffs is concerned, the plaintiffs were required to get that relief in other appropriate proceedings and not in this partition suit as its tenancy was protected under the Rent Act.

(3.) BY the same order a local commissioner was appointed to suggest the modes of partition of the suit property. After the local commissioner gave a report indicating the specific portions which were to be given to both the sides final order was passed by the Court on 18th December, 2003 decreeing the suit. That order is re-produced below:-