S.N. PURI Vs. RAJAN KAPOOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order dated November 26, 2013 various applications have been decided by the learned Single Judge, two of which are IA No.853/2013 and IA No.11351/2013. Whereas IA No.853/2013 was filed by plaintiff No.1, IA No.11351/2013 was filed jointly by plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and 3. The former application was filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the latter was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. IA No.853/2013 has been allowed. Decree on admission has been passed in favour of plaintiff No.1. IA No.11351/2013 has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant who was plaintiff No.2 has filed the instant appeal and today learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant's grievance is two-fold. Firstly to the dismissal of IA No.11351/2013 which was filed jointly by the appellant and defendants No.1 and 3. Counsel states that a decree in terms of the compromise ought to have been passed. The second grievance is to the decree being passed in favour of only plaintiff No.1 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) From the facts which we would be noticing hereinafter it is apparent that the appellant, who was plaintiff No.1 is fighting a proxy second innings and the real beneficiary of the litigation would be Vinod Kumar Bakshi, the real contesting party who was defendant No.3 in the suit.