TARACHAND JAIN Vs. SAROJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 151, CPC seeks recalling the 'collusive' decree of 2.9.1999 passed in CS(OS) 2121/1987. Before coming to the averments in the application, it is necessary to have a look at the proceedings in this case.

(2.) The applicant filed the S.No. 2121/87 against Saroj Bala with the following story. An agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 15/275, Vishwa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') on 30.9.82 for a consideration of Rs. 4.75 lacs after actual payment of earnest money of Rs. 25,000/-. But the defendant failed to obtain the pre-requisite permissions/sanctions from various authorities and failed to perform the agreement. Two supplementary agreements dated 22.9.83 and 30.3.84 were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff whereby the time for execution was extended upto 30.9.87 with direction to the defendant to obtain necessary permissions and sanctions from the local authorities at Kanpur and clearance from the Income Tax Department at Delhi/Kanpur. This Court issued summons to the defendant and also passed an order of injunction dated 5.10.87 restraining the defendant from transferring her right, title and interest in the suit property. On 26.10.87, the defendant put in appearance through Mr. V.K. Mishra and subsequently filed his written statement and reply to the application for injunction. The dates fortrial were given as 9th and 10th October, 1997 and, thereafter, 6th and 8th February, 2000.

(3.) On 29.7.99, before the date fixed for trial, IA 7091/99 was filed by Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi for substitution as plaintiffs in place of Tara Chand Jain who had assigned his interest in the suit property in their favour by virtue of an agreement dated 28.7.99. On that day, the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Alakh Kumar, Advocate and the applicants by Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate. Upto the earlier date, the plaintiff was being represented by one Mr. J.K. Jain. On certain dates the plaintiff was himself present in Court. The application was allowed on 29.7.1999 and thus applicants were substituted in place of the plaintiff. Thereafter, an application under Order 23 Rule 3, CPC was filed by Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi which was listed for disposal on 2.9.99. This application was allowed and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise.