MANRAO RASIKLAL JAISWAL Vs. MINAKSHIBEN RASIKLAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Megha Jani, learned Advocate for the respective petitioners and Mr. P. M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 9 and 14 and Mr. Pranav Raval, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in each of the petitions.

(3.) IN all these petitions, the respective petitioner ?" original plaintiff No. 5 ?" Manrao Jaiswal has challenged the orders passed below Exh. 30 in Civil Suit No. 391 of 2004; Exh. 26 in Civil Suit No. 392 of 2001; Exh. 25 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 2001 and Exh. 25 in Civil Suit No. 394 of 2001 and Exh. 47 in Civil Suit No. 391 of 2001; Exh. 43 in Civil Suit No. 392 of 2001; Exh. 42 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 2001 and Exh. 41 in Civil Suit No. 394 of 2001. It appears vide orders passed below Exh. 30 in Civil Suit No. 391 of 2004; Exh. 26 in Civil Suit No. 392 of 2001; Exh. 25 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 2001 and Exh. 25 in Civil Suit No. 394 of 2001, the learned trial Court has passed the order to amend the plaint by deleting original defendant Nos. 1,8 and 9 in respective Suits. Mr. P. M. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents submitted that they would not have any objections if order passed below Exh. 30 in Civil Suit No. 391 of 2004; Exh. 26 in Civil Suit No. 392 of 2001; Exh. 25 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 2001 and Exh. 25 in Civil Suit No. 394 of 2001 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the same after giving opportunity to all concerned and submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. So far as the challenge to the orders passed below Exh. 47 in Civil Suit No. 391 of 2001; Exh. 43 in Civil Suit No. 392 of 2001; Exh. 42 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 2001 and Exh. 41 in Civil Suit No. 394 of 2001 is concerned, it is the contention on behalf of Ms. Megha Jani, learned Advocate for the petitioner ?" original plaintiff No. 5 that considering Order XXIII Rule-1 Sub-Rule (5); Order XXIII Rule 3 and more particularly provisio to Order XXIII Rule 3, the learned Trial Court ought not to have allowed Exh. 47 in Civil Suit No. 391 of 2001; Exh. 43 in Civil Suit No. 392 of 2001; Exh. 42 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 2001 and Exh. 41 in Civil Suit No. 394 of 2001, when compromise is disputed by one of the plaintiff ?" petitioner ?" original plaintiff No. 5. According to her, even consent terms qua some of the plaintiffs could not have been recorded by the learned trial Court as it will ultimately affect the rights of the petitioner. She has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Star Construction and Transport Co. and Ors. V/s. The India Cements Ltd. reported in AIR 2001 SC 941 in support of her submission that where there is varied compromise and/or consent terms, they are required to be considered before even recording compromise and/or passing any order on the said consent terms.