RAKESH JAIN Vs. ATUL BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain has instituted this suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of Rs.6,75,06,667/- with pendente lite and future interest and costs, jointly and severally from (i) Atul Bansal, (ii) ABW Infrastructure Limited, (iii) Ved Prakash Saxena, (iv) Ravi Shanker and (v) Aditya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

(2.) The suit came up first before this Court on 27th February, 2018 when summons thereof ordered to be issued and the defendant No.2 ABW Infrastructure Limited directed to maintain status-quo with respect to possession and title of land admeasuring 62 Kanals and 13 Marlas in Village Nangli Umarpur, Gurgaon, Haryana.

(3.) The order dated 18th April, 2018 records that the defendants No.1,2&5 Atul Bansal, ABW Infrastructure Limited and Aditya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. had been served and the defendant No.3 Ved Prakash Saxena was reported to have died. The counsel for defendants No.1,2&4 appeared on 18th April, 2018 and also informed that the name of Aditya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has been changed to ABW Infrastructure Limited and thus defendants No.2&5 were one and the same entity. The order dated 8th August, 2018 records that winding up order had already been "passed" against defendant No.2. The plaintiff applied for issuance of summons for judgment and which vide order dated 26th November, 2018 were ordered to be issued. The order dated 18th February, 2019, for reasons stated therein, records that the suit did not qualify under Order XXXVII of the CPC and had been wrongly treated as under Order XXXVII of the CPC and ordered the suit to be converted into an ordinary suit and gave opportunity to the defendants No.1&4 to file written statement. Yesterday i.e. 7th August, 2019, when the suit came up before this Court, it was found, (a) that the plaintiff, inspite of repeated opportunities had not taken any step to substitute the heirs of defendant No.3 Ved Prakash Saxena; and, (b) that the plaintiff, inspite of opportunity had not taken any steps for obtaining permission from the Company Court to proceed with the suit against the defendant No.2 ABW Infrastructure Limited which was under liquidation. Thus, the suit, insofar as against the defendant No.3 Ved Prakash Saxena was found to have abated and insofar as against the defendants No.2&5 ABW Infrastructure Limited and/or Aditya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which are the same entity, was dismissed for non-prosecution and the suit was kept for today to consider, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree forthwith against defendants No.1&4 and the effect of abatement of the suit qua defendant No.3.