DALMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. JAGMOHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/defendant No.1, Shri Jagmohan Gupta, has sought review of order dated 8th March, 2006 whereby defendant Nos. 2(ii) and 2(iii) who had died even prior to filing of the suit were deleted and there legal representatives were impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and the application of the Defendant No.1 to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was filed against two dead persons, was dismissed.

(2.) The order dated 8th March, 2006 was a composite order allowing IA Nos. 6477/1993 (Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC), 7282/1994 (Under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC) and 7416/1994 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) filed by the plaintiff for impleading the Legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.2 (ii) and defendant no. 2(iii) as parties to the suit and dismissal of the IA No. 10039/1994 (Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) filed by defendant no.1 for rejection of plaint holding that the plaintiff is entitled to move an application for deletion of the names of the deceased persons who had died prior to the institution of the suit and impleadment of their legal representatives and that the application for impleadment was filed without much delay and was for bonafide reasons and that the particulars regarding other suit CS(OS) 1875/1992 filed by the Defendant no.1 regarding dates on which it was instituted and the dates on which the notices/summons were served on the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff had notice about the death of the these defendants were not furnished nor any pleading or any documents pertaining to other suit filed by the defendant no.1 were filed before the Court in this suit. The review of order dated 8th March, 2006 has been sought on the ground that the plaintiff has not satisfied the guidelines/parameters of ?due diligence? and ?bonafide mistake? and as such has failed in two essential ingredients for deleting the names of dead persons and for impleadment of their legal representatives. Learned counsel's contention is that the findings of the Court are self-contradictory, factually incorrect and against the well-established principles of law.

(3.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on 15th December, 1992 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19th January, 1983. According to the applicant/defendant no. 1 another suit for possession, damages and mesne profit was filed being suit no. CS(OS) No.1875/1992, Jagmohan Gupta and Anr. Versus Dalmia Industries Limited and ors. by him prior to the suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of the agreement to sell dated 19th January, 1983. According to the applicant, the present suit, for specific performance of agreement to sell being CS(OS) 4622/1992 was filed by the plaintiff as a counter blast to the earlier suit of the defendant no.1.