SUNDER LAL BAJAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff had filed this suit for a declaration that the orders dated September 2, 1959, October 20, 1959, April 1, 1980 and November 13, 1980 passed by different authorities of the Government of India under the provisions of Displaced Persons(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ultra vires and not binding upon the plaintiff and the said orders do not confer any right, title or interest upon defendants 2 & 3.

(2.) Defendant No.1 did not contest the suit and defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.2 was already dead as on the date of filing of the suit. One of the order which has been challenged is the order dated 2nd September, 1959, whereby the application of defendant No.2 against the automatic vesting of the property in suit in the custodian was allowed and the case was remanded to the Assistant Custodian (Judicial). The Assistant Custodian (Judicial), by an order dated October 13, 1959, held the property to be the non-evacuee property belonging to defendant No.2 and released the same in his favour. As defendant No.2 was already dead as on the date of filing of the suit, vide order dated 11th December, 1984 his name was deleted from the array of the defendants. Prima facie, it appears that the suit could not proceed in the absence of the legal representatives of defendant No.2 as he would have been directly affected in case of a decision in the suit against him. However, the suit continued to proceed even in the absence of the said defendant. Presently, it is also not the controversy in the above applications as to whether the suit could proceed in the absence of the defendant No.2. I, therefore, need not dwell upon this question as to whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of defendant No.2.

(3.) Defendants 1 & 3 had been proceeded ex parte and ex parte evidence of the plaintiff wasecorded on 29th July, 1985. On repeated requests for adjournments made by counsel for the plaintiff, the case was being adjourned from time to fime for arguments. Case was listed for arguments on 7th January, 1991 when the counsel for the plaintiff made a statement in Court that the plaintiff had since expired and he wanted to take necessary steps in the matter. However, subsequently, Mr.R.K. Saini, Advocate, appeared for the plaintiff on 20th March, 1991 and made a statement in the Court that he had contacted the legal representatives of the plaintiff but they were not interested in pursuing the case and he wanted the suit to be dismissed for non- prosecution.