PRAVINCHANDRA HARILAL SELAR Vs. VINODCHANDRA HARILAL SELAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these petitions by the petitioners - original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 separately are filed challenging the very same order dtd. 30/8/2014 passed below Exhs.1 and 515 rendered in Special Civil Suit No.627 of 1988 by the 9 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, it is proposed to be dealt with and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18344 of 2014 - Pravinchandra Harilal Selar is original plaintiff no.1 and petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15002 of 2014 - Vinodchandra Harilal Selar is original plaintiff no.2 in Special Civil Suit No.627 of 1988.

(3.) As coming out from the plaint, initially plaintiff nos.1 and 2 filed a suit against defendant - Chunilal Bhulabhai Patel, who is respondent no.28 herein in both the petitions. However, there are several amendments whereby defendants have been added and joined as parties as also plaintiffs to the suit. Initially plaintiffs i.e. petitioners of both these petitions filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of agreement to sale in respect of the suit property filed against Chunilal Bhulabhai Patel, the only defendant. Later on, both the petitioners - original plaintiffs transferred their right under an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff nos.3 to 6 by an agreement dtd. 20/2/1991, who are respondent nos.2 to 5 herein. Therefore, they preferred an application praying to join them as plaintiff nos.3 to 6 requesting suitable corrections in the plaint as mentioned in the application, Exh.179, which came to be granted and plaintiff nos.3 to 6 came to be joined in the suit with the express consent of original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 i.e. petitioners herein acknowledging agreement dtd. 20/2/1991 executed in favour of plaintiff nos.3 to 6 and assigning their rights in their favour. Both the petitioners - plaintiff nos.1 and 2 have in writing given their express consent to join plaintiff nos.3 to 6 in the suit, and therefore, the amendment as prayed for vide application, Exh.179 came to be granted. Though there is further assignment of right by plaintiff nos.3 to 6 in favour of other plaintiffs also, who have also been joined as plaintiffs and so on and there are deletion of certain plaintiffs as parties, which is not in dispute, further details in respect there of is not necessary to be gone into for determining the present controversy in these petitions, and therefore, it is not elaborated further.