SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of I.As.3834/92, 13694/92 & 13695/92.

(2.) Suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, alleging that Hanuman Pershad Gupta who was Karta of M/s.Deoki Nandan & Sons (HUF), obtained lease of plot No.29 Block No.11 (now known as 1, Tughlak Lane, New Delhi), admeasuring about 1.492 acres, from the Govt. of India through the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and a lease-deed was executed on October 13, 1937 operative with effect from November 17, 1931. He got constructed a building on the land and moved therein alongwith his family in or about 1948. Plaintiff, defendant No.1, Krishan Kumar Gupta (deceased), husband of defendant No.4 and father of defendants 5 & 6, Atul Kumar Gupta (deceased), husband of defendant No.2(i) and father of defendants 2(ii), 2(iii) & 3. are the sons of said Hanuman Pershad Gupta who expired on December 18, 1972. It is alleged that in a petition being Suit No.2164A/85 filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act by the plaintiff dispute between the parties were referred for adjudication to Justice Jaswant Singh, retired Judge of the Supreme Court, by an order dated November 18, 1985 by this Court. Arbitrator gave his award on June 8, 1988 and the same was made the rule of the court with minor modifications by the order dated September 17, 1990 in Suit No.1754A/88. It is further alleged that defendant No.1 intends to create interest in favour of an outsider in the said property in violation of the terms of the lease-deed dated October 13, 1937 and the award dated June 8, 1988 which has been made the rule of the court. It was prayed that defendant No.1 restrained from alienating, assigning, parting with possession and/or otherwise creating any third party interest of any part of the said property.

(3.) After the filing of the written statement by defendant No.1, aforesaid I.A.3834/92 under Order I Rule 10(2), Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of M/s. Apeejay Ltd. as defendant No.7 and the amendment of the plaint. On objection being taken in the replies by the defendants that two separate applications ought to have been filed for the double relief claimed in the said application, aforementioned I.As.13694/92 under Order VI Rule 17 & Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint and 13695/92 under Order I Rule 10(2) & Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment of M/s. Apeejay Ltd. and M/s.Tital Estates Private Ltd. as defendants 7 & 8 were filed by the plaintiff.